Watson v RCA Victor Company Inc.
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 1934 |
| Date | 31 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 50 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
(Sheriff Morton.)
Air Law — Definition of Aircraft — Seaplane — Whether a Ship — Salvage of Cargo of Seaplane — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 — Air Navigation Act, 1920 — Territorial Limits of Legislation — Foreign Aircraft Operating outside Jurisdiction — Salvage of Goods from Land.
The Facts.—The pursuer, Thomas Watson, master of the steam trawler Lord Talbot, appealed from a decision of Sheriff-Substitute Laing, dismissing his claim for salvage services alleged to have been rendered to cinematograph equipment landed from a seaplane belonging to the defenders, which had been compelled by stress of weather to descend into the sea off Greenland. The facts as they appear from the judgment of the Sheriff-Substitute were as follows:
“When about to commence fishing at the fishing grounds off Cape Dan, Greenland, the Lord Talbot, which was equipped with wireless and a movable searchlight, received an S.O.S. message from a seaplane giving a position at sea, and at once proceeded to the position which it reached at about 6.15 p.m. on September 11, 1932. As no trace of the seaplane could be found the Lord Talbot by means of her searchlight searched the coast, and after an all-night search in the company of two other vessels who joined in the search discovered the seaplane on a rocky islet surrounded by the ice pack. This seaplane the pursuer subsequently ascertained was piloted by Colonel George P. Hutchinson who was attempting a flight with his family consisting of his wife and two daughters and accompanied by four of a crew from New York to Europe.
“It transpired that the seaplane, which had been compelled by stress of weather to descend into the sea, had succeeded, after sending out an S.O.S. message, in making a sea passage towards the rocky island, as it approached which it foundered. Those on board, however, were able to scramble ashore and to take with them part of their equipment. The island on which they landed was a bare rock with no bird life or vegetation or shelter, remote from sources of succour, and the party had no means of communication, and but for the efforts of the pursuer and his crew would inevitably have perished. Part of the equipment taken ashore consisted of a cinematograph camera and equipment which had been taken for the purpose of securing cinematograph pictures and sound records as a commercial enterprise for gain.
“The value of the camera and equipment is said, when salved, to have been £3000, and it is in respect of the salving of this valuable apparatus that in this action the pursuer claims an award of £300.”
The defenders pleaded inter alia: “(1) that no salvage services were rendered by the pursuer for the reason that the defenders' property salved was not part of a ship's cargo, as the seaplane on which the camera equipment was stowed was not a ship; and (2) that on the assumption that a seaplane may be regarded as a ship for salvage purposes, no award of salvage can be made for the reason that the cinematograph equipment was salved not from a wreck at sea or on shore, but on land.”
Held: that the appeal must be dismissed. Sheriff Morton shortly expressed his concurrence with the judgment of Sheriff-Substitute Laing in the Court below, the relevant portions of which were as follows:
“The first issue to be decided then is this. Can a seaplane be regarded as in the nature of a ship or vessel so as to bring it and its cargo...
To continue reading
Request your trial