The Polo
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1939 |
| Date | 07 July 1939 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Langton, J. assisted by Elder Brethern of Trinity House
The Polo
Collision in Bosporus Rule that vessels proceeding up towards Black sea must, if it is possible and can be done without danger, follow left side of mid-channel, whilst those coming down from Black Sea must navigate close to Anatolian coast up-going vessel keeping close in to European shore
ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. 319 ADM.] THE POLO. [ADM. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. AUMIRALTY BUSINESS. May 23 and 24, and July 5,6, and 7, 1939. (Before LANGTON, J. assisted by Elder Brethren of Trinity House.) The POLO. (a) Collision in Bosporus-Rule that vessels proceeding up towards Black Sea must, " if it is possible and can be done without danger", follow left side, of mid-channel, whilst those coming down from Black Sea must navigate close to Anatolian coast-Up-going vessel keeping close in to European shore - Down - coming vessel drifting over towards European shore-Starboard and hard-a-starboard wheel action by up-going vessel- Porting by down-coming vessel-Impact at right-angle in about centre of channel-Lookout-Persistence in wrong wheel action- Failure to stop or reverse-Both vessels equally to blame-Turkish Ministerial Decree of the 27th December, 1934, art. 2. This was an action brought by the owners of the Greek steamship C. against the owners of the British steamship P. for damages in respect of a collision which occurred between the C. and the P. in the. Bosporus about five cables to the northward of Rumili Point and in about mid-channel on the night of the 14th November, 1038, in weather which was agreed to have been fine and clear. Each vessel attributed the collision and damage to the sole negligence of the other. The plaintiffs' case was that shortly before 9 p.m. on the 14th November, 1938, the C., while on a voyage from Braila to the United Kingdom, was in the Bosporus, coming down with the southerly current which was between one and two knots' force. In accordance with local rules, the C. was keeping to the eastward of mid-channel, and with engines working at half-speed ahead was making about five-and-a-half knots through the water. She was exhibiting the regulation lights, including the optional additional masthead light, and these were burning brightly. A good look-out was being kept on board her. In these circumstances those on board the C. observed distant about one mile, and bearing about half-a-point on the C.'s starboard bow, masthead lights and both side lights of a vessel which proved to be the P., and which was then rounding Rumili Point. The C. sounded a signal of two short blasts, and her wheel was ported a little. The P. sounded one short blast in reply, and the C. then repeated the signal of two short blasts and put her wheel hard-a-port. Another short blast was heard from the P., whereupon the C. again blew two short blasts, keeping her wheel hard-a-port. Immediately afterwards the engines of the C. were stopped and then put full astern, and three short blasts were sounded on the C.'s whistle, but the P. continued to come on at speed, altering course to starboard, and with her stem struck the starboard bow and anchor of the C., causing damage to the C. and forcing her round so that she came close to the shore and touched the bottom. As the P. approached the C. her green light shut in. The defendants' case, on the other hand, was that at about 8.50 p.m. on the day in question the P., which was on a voyage from Hull to Black Sea ports, was going up the Bosporus navigating against the current, the force of which they put at five knots. The P. was keeping to the European side of the channel, not steering a compass course but heading about N. She was making about nine knots through the water and exhibiting the regulation masthead (two), side and stern lights:, all of which were burning brightly. A good look-out was being kept on board the P. In these circumstances the masthead and red lights of a vessel which proved to be the C. were observed by those on board the P. distant a little over a mile and bearing about one point on the P.'s starboard bow. Whilst the P. kept her course and speed, the C. was seen to cross on to the port bow of the P., and to be approaching with her red light still open. As, however, the C. did not cross on to her port side of the channel, the P., being unable on account of the proximity of the European shore to port her wheel, starboarded her wheel and blew a signal of one short blast on her whistle, to which shortly afterwards the C. replied with two short blasts. To this the P. replied with another signal of one short blast. Upon the C. again blowing two short blasts, the 'P. replied with one short blast and put her wheel hard-a-starboard. About the same time the C.'s red light shut in and her green opened, whereupon the P. immediately put her engines full-speed astern and sounded a signal of three short blasts, which signal was shortly afterwards repeated, but the C. came on and, swinging to port, struck the port bow of the P., doing damage. The plaintiffs blamed the P. for failing to comply with arts. 23, 27 and 29 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and with Caution No. 3 on Admiralty Chart No. 1198. The defendants alleged the failure on the part of the C. to observe the same articles of the Collision Regulations, and, in addition, art. 2 of the Ministerial Decree of the 27th September, 1934, relating to the Port of Istambul. Held, (1) that the C. was to blame for navigating on her wrong side of the channel, thus placing the P. in an embarrassing predicament; the C. was also to blame for a bad look-out. (2) That the P. was also to blame, for having continued her starboard-wheel action and for not taking off her way in the face of the clearly (a) Reported by J. A. PETRIE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 320 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. ADM.] THE POLO. [ADM. manifested intention of the C. to correct her initial fault and to get back to her proper side of the channel as laid down by the local rule. His Lordship held both vessels equally to blame. DAMAGES BY COLLISION. The plaintiffs were the Kassos Steam Navigation Company, Limited, owners of the steamship Chelatros (3489 tons gross), belonging to the port of Syria, Greece. The defendants were Ellerman's Wilson Line, Limited, owners of the steamship Polo (1050 tons gross). The Chelatros was on a voyage from Braila to the United Kingdom, laden with a cargo of wheat; the Polo, on a voyag from Hull to Black Sea ports, partly laden with a general cargo. The collision occurred in the Bosporus in a position between Khanl??eh Point to the northward and Rumili Point to the southward and, as the learned judge found, if not actually in mid-channel, certainly not to the westward of it. The current in this reach of the Bosporus runs substantially in a southerly direction from the north, the water from the Black Sea being almost continuously higher than the water below in-the Sea of Marmora, hut at times this current is affected in certain parts by cross currents, thus imposing upon navigators, especially if not acquainted with these waters, a special duty of care. It was admitted in evidence that whilst the Master of the Polo knew the Bosporus very well, the Master of the Chelatros had not previously navigated a vessel through it. In argument, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that...
To continue reading
Request your trial