HARBOUR COLLISION

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 75, 9 January 1928, Page 7

HARBOUR COLLISION

FERRY MASTER EXONERATED.

TAHITI’S SPEED EXCESSIVE. (Per Press Association—Copyright.) SYDNEY, January 8. The Court and galleries were filled to overflowing and a large crowd gathered in. the street when Mr Justice Campbell delivered his judgment in the Taliiti-Greycliffe collision inquiry this morning. Mr Justice Campbell said that on the evidence produced he could not give a decision on the matter, but he added that the Tahiti’s speed was in excess of the Greycliffe’s. The- captain of the Greycliffe could not be held responsible, as he considered that his speed was in excess of the Overseas Ships’ Regulations, and that therefore he could not be overtaken. Mr Justice Campbell held that the Tahiti’s speed exceeded the harbour regulations for overseas vessels. Mr Justice Campbell continued : ‘ ‘From abreast of the northern end _of Garden Island to the place at which the collision occurred, the Tahiti was, in relation to the Greycliffe, an overtaking vessel, and I think the cause of the collision was the failure of the Tahiti to observe that rule and keep out of the way of the Greycliffe. I am unable to accept .the case put forward on behalf of the Tahiti and those in charge of that vessel that the Greycliffe, when she was about 400 feet away from the Tahiti’.s bridge, and about four points ’on the starboard bow, suddenly swung to port with a sharp angle of turn that would head her almost north and to west of Bradley’s Head. No one was able to suggest any reason for this as a voluntary act..and it is not otherwise sought to be explained or accounted for, and it is flatly denied by the master of the Greycliffe.” His Honor added: “The alternative view of the reason for the two vessels being placed in such positions that a collision was inevitable was the result of their normal progression upon their ordinary courses respectively, and that situation must then have been potentially dangerous. The master of the Greycliffe was clearly totally ignorant of this, and of the proximity of the Tahiti,' but those in control of the Tahiti, having the Greycliffe in full view, should have be ( en aware of it, hut apparently were not, and momentary inattention to the Greycliffe when the ferry steamer Woolara was passing to port afforded just sufficient time to turn the potential danger into an imminent, deadly peril. This was/ recognised by the pilot when he exclaimed : “Good God!” and sounded two blasts of the whistle. He was constrained to accept this view by the force of the evidence as well as consideration of the probabilities. It seemed more probable that the situation was allowed to develop dangerously in the momentary interval of distraction than that the tragedy was created by an insensate act of an apparently sane man, that was by the master of the Greycliffe suddenly, without any conceivable motive, turning at a right-angle from his course and going in-the direction in which he had no desire to go.” The evidence indicated the probability that the vessels were slightly converging, sufficiently to place them in dangerous proximity without any such sudden convergence as attributed to the Greycliffe. Dealing with the speeds of the two vessels, he said that it was not on the evidence possible to arrive at adefinite estimate of the speed of either vessel, but in his judgment there was no room for doubt that the speed of the Tahiti as she approached the point of collision was greatly in excess of the prescribed speed limit for outgoing deep-sea vessels in that portion of the harbour. It must have exceeded the speed of the Greycliffe, which was probably between nine and ten knots. That of the Tahiti was possibly about twelve. There was no evidence to show that the master of the Greycliffe committed any positive breach of the rules of harbour navigation, nor Avas there any evidence to show that he Avas guilty of any act of omission or commission amounting to a, breach of his general duty to exercise care in the management of his vessel, which j caused, or contributed to, the collision.

Air Justice Campbell stressed the necessity of Ihe authorities seeing that tlie harbour regulations were vigorously carried out. He added that after the collision everything was done that could have been done to save life. No one on hoard the Tahiti or elsewhere who was in a position to aid exhibited any lack of concern of judgment or effort for the mitigation of the immediate consequences of the disaster. The hearing of the Greycliffe enquiry will be re-opened at the Coroner’s Court tomorrow. Fifty witne-ssps have already been examined and subpoenas served on 100 others, so that the hearing is likely to be lengthy-. What action will follow' Mr Justice Campbell’s findings in the Marine Court will depend either upon the Federal Director of Navigation or the State Superintendent of Navigation, v 7 ho hove the power to decide from the findings whether the material exists upon which any individual can "be called upon to show cause W'hy his certificate should not be cancelled Though the parties have no right to appeal against Air Justice Campbell's findings, subsequent litigation will open the door for appeal claims for compensation for the injured in the disaster and dependents of the dead, which are sure to be filed in the Supreme Court. Another possible development is an action at law between the Union Steam Ship and the Sydney Ferries Companies.