The Rigel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1912 |
| Date | 19 February 1912 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Bargrave Deane, J.
The Rigel
Dulieu v. WhiteELR 85 L. T. Rep. 126 (1901) 2 K. B. 669
The CirceDID=ASPMELR 93 L. T. Rep. 640 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 149 (1906) P. 1
The AnnieDID=ASPMELR 100 L. T. Rep. 415 11 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 213 (1909) P. 176
The FranklandDID=ASPMELR 84 L. T. Rep. 395 9 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 196 (1901) P. 161
The General HavelockELR (1906) P. 4
The ThetaDID=ASPMELR 71 L. T. Rep. 25 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 480 (1894) P. 280
The Vera CruzDID=ASPMELR 52 L. T. Rep. 474 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 386 10 App. Cas. 59
Cory and Son v. France FenwickELR 103 L. T. Rep. 649 (1911) 1 K. B. 114
The ZetaDID=ASPM 69 L. T. Rep. 630 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 369 (1893) A. C. 468
The Sylph 17 L. T. Rep. 519 L. Rep. 2 A. & E. 24
The Guldfaxs 19 L. T. Rep. 748 L. Rep. 2 A. & E.325
Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58). ss. 6, 7
Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), s. 7
Collision — Personal injury — Shock to seaman
192 MARITIME LAW CASES. ADM.] THE RIGEL. [ADM. PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. ADMIRALTY BUSINESS. Feb. 5 and 19,1912. (Before BARgrAVE DMANB, J.) THe RIGEL. (a) Collitim - Personal injury-Shock to seaman -Britith thip-Workmen's Compensation Aet 1906 (6 Edw. 7, e. 58). u. 6, 7-Claim by seaman against employer-Claim by employer against wrongdoer-Action in rem-Damage done by any thip-Admiralty Court Aet 1861 (24 Viet, c. 10), s. 7-Bemotenest of damage. A lightship owned by the Commissioners of Irish Lights was run into and damaged by a German sailing ship which was in tow of a tug. The tailing ship was arrested in England in an action in rem inttituted by the owners of the lightship to recover the damage they had sustained, and an undertaking was given in the action to appear and put in bail to. answer the claim. After the writ was issued and the under' taking was given, one of the erew on the lightship. made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 agairut her owners for compensation for injury caused by shock by fright before the collision actually took place, and an award was made in his favour in proceedings before an Irish County Court judge. The owners of the German ship were not represented at the County Court and were not parties. The owners of the lightship claimed an indemnity for any sum paid or payable to the \oorkman in respect of his injury, and sought to recover the sum so paid from the owners of the German sailing ship. On the claim coming before the registrar he dismissed it. The owners of the lightship appealed from his decision. On appeal Held, affirming the decision of the registrar, that even assuming that the seaman had in fact sus-tained the shock alleged and was entitled to recover compensation under the Act from the commissioners, and though the shtp was for the purposes of the Act 10 be considered a British ship, the owner* of the German sailing ship were not bound by the decision in the arbitration. Held, further, that the damage was not" done by any ship " within the meantna of sect. 7 of the Admiralty Court Aet 1861, and that the claim was too remote. PETITION in objection to the report of the registrar dismissing a claim made by the Irish Lights Commissioners against the owners of the German sailing ship Bigel. The claim disallowed by the registrar was a claim for an indemnity in respect of sums paid to one of the crew of the lightship under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 which the commissioners sought to recover in an action in rem as damages caused by a collision which occurred between the two vessels. On the 5th Aug. 1910 James Keating was nerving on the lightship Petrel as a seaman, and was acting as cook and gunner. About 7.10 a.m. on (he 5th Aug. he was onwatoh, when the Petrel was struck a glancing blow by the sailing ship Bigel, which was in tow of a tog. Keating was not knocked down, but he alleged be was very much frightened and suffered from shock and could not sleep. On the 29th Aug. Keating left the lightship, his employment, which was of a temporary character, having come to an end. Daring his employment on the lightship he made no complaint to the master or mate, bat he went to see a doctor the day after he left the lightship and complained of sleeplessness and shock. On the 9th Aug. the commissioners issued a writ in rem against the Rigel, claiming the sum of 1000l. against the Rigel for damage by collision. On the 15th Oct. a solicitor acting on behalf of James Keating wrote to the commissioners alleging that his client had sustained injury from an aocident which had happened to him while in their employ. On the 20th Oct the commissioners replied to that letter stating that it was the first they had heard of the accioent. On the 31st Oct. the solicitors acting on behalf of the Bigel admitted liability " for the damages, the subject-matter of the action, and pray a reference to the registrar and merchants to assess the amount thereof." On the 8th and 11th Nov. the commissioners received letters from the mate and master of the Petrel stating that Keating bad discharged his duties up to the 29th Aug., when he left the ship. The mate stated that after be bad been put ashore he asked for a letter to the Irish Lights doctor, but that this was refused him as he had left the service. On the 17th Nov. the commissioners forwarded their claim in the damage action to the solicitors for the Bigel. The claim contained twenty items, amounting to 3651. 19s. 5d., and ended as follows: The plaintiffs also claim an Indemnity against the defendants for any earn for which they may be liable in respect of injury alleged to have been sustained by one James Keating;, a seaman employed on board the lightship Pstnl at the time of the collision the enbjeot of this action by reason of the said collision. On the 23rd Jan. 1911 a further letter was received by the commissioners from the solicitor acting for Keating stating that he was prepared to settle his claim for 2501. On the 25th March 1911 the plaintiffs filed their claim in the Admiralty rogistry, and when (a)Reported by L. F. 0. DARBy, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. MARITIME LAW CASES. 193 ADM.] THE RIGEL. [ADM. the reference came on on the 29th March 1911 the first twenty items were either agreed or admitted and the reference was adjourned as no formal Claim had been put forward by Keating against the commissioners. On the 81st March Keating started proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 to recover compensation from the commissioners, alleging that be was totally incapacitated by shock and claiming half-pay daring his incapacity. On the 6th April the solicitors acting for the commissioners wrote to the solicitors for the defendants giving them notice that a claim had been made, asking them if they would take over the defence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Moliere
...; 100 L. T. Rep. 415 ; (1909) P. 176) ; The General Huvelock (1006) P. 3 (n); The Iligel (12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 192 ; 100 L. T. Rep. 648 ; (1912) P. 99). Stranger for the respondents.-The registrar was right in allowing both items. The employment of the surveyors was necessary, and their wo......
-
The Caliph
...of life. This is not damage done by a ship within the meaning of sect. 7 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861: The Rigel, 106 L. T. Rep. 648; (1912) P. 99. Statutes are to be construed as only applying to cases and facts which some into existence alter the statutes are passed unless a retrospect......