WAS NEGLIGENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 93, 19 April 1940, Page 8

WAS NEGLIGENT.

MASTER OF LIGHTER.

NO PROPER LOOK-OUT. COLLISION INQUIRY FINDING. (By Telegraph.—Special to "Star") XAPIER, this day. Xeglijrence on the part of the master of the Koutiinui, Captain A. Mj.-X.ib, was found by the Marine Court of Inquiry to have been the cause, of the collision in Napier roadstead on the night of .January :<1 betvvem the lighter Koutiinui and the Xobel Kxplo>ives Company's ketch Miro. The. Court, comprising Mr. J. Miller, S.M., and Captains 11. Worrall and Oorge Williamson, de-

livered its finding: to-day. In its finding tlie Court discussed the anchor ing of ths Miro in the position which she occupied when i>hc wa« struck l>y the Koutiinui and stated that the. master of the Miro. Captain M. Mona ghan. had decided, on account of the weather conditions, that the gunpowder anchorage wa«s too exposed and had acvonliligly anchored in the western part of the roadstead, in a position wliicli was cliecked and pa>sed a« *=afe lor an anchorage l>y the harbourmaster. Captain A. McLaelilan.

Wo found 110 negligence in tin*. choice of tin- position attributable either to I lie master o! the Miro or to the harbourmaster. ami we liml that owing to weather conditions, the anchorage was justilio<l. stated tile liuding. "The master of the Miro took all precaut ionin |iiox itlinir the regulation anchorage Jijiht and .-coing that it continued burning properly and in seeing that the \eci-el's anchor had not inove<l.'' Did Not See Lights. The Court remarked that it was customary on lighters for the ma-tors to steer from the wheel -house and at l!ie same time keep a lookout. "The master of the Koutunui claims that he kept a proper lookout when returning fioui lightering the Port Campbell iu tile toadstead. but did not see the Miro or the Miro's light until he was abolt to coll:d----with her. The night was a clear, dark night. The wheel-house is in a giod position and vision is good. We are of the opinion that 'proper lookout' mea-is undivided attention to especially near objects. Steering to a far object is diversion and is engagement in another duty. We considered that the lighters working at night, running backward and forward to vessels in the roadstead should havo a man stationed forward to assist li.o master in keeping n lookout. Ti:e master of the Koutunui was negligent in failing to remember that he had ea-lier passed the anchored Miro. He should have assured himself that the Miro was still there.

Questions Answered. '"Had he remembered this, notwithstanding that there was confusion by lights in the background and that he was steering as well as looking out., there seems no reason why he should not have seen the Miro's lights in time to avoid a collision.

"I'ndei these special circumstances iie was also negligent in not having a man at the bow to assist him."

To the first question addressed to it —What was the cause of the casualty? —the Court answered: "In view of the presence of the Miro. the master of the Koutunui was quite negligent in failing to provide a proper lookout, namely, an extra hand, at the bow and he himself failed to keep the proper lookout."

To the second question—Whether the casualty was caused or contributed to by any wrongful act or default of the master of the Koutunui or of the master of the Miro?—the Court answered: "Bv the wrongful act and default of the master of the Koutunui."

Xo order was made regarding the cancellation or suspension ot the master's certificate or as to costs.