EQUALLY TO BLAME

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 125, 22 November 1935, Page 13

EQUALLY TO BLAME

COLLISION AT SEA

LAURENTIC-NAPIER STAR

HIGH COURT DECISION

(From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, October 26.

Several days were occupied in the High Court of Justice in hearing evidence concerning the collision of the Cunard White Star liner Laurentic with the Blue Star freight liner Napier Star. Damages were claimed and counter-claimed.

Mr. Justice Bucknill, who. heard the case, assisted by Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, has delivered judgment. His lordship pronounced both ships in fault in equal degrees.

In his judgment Mr. Justice Buck-, nill said he could not accept as accurate the evidence from the bridge of the Laurentic. His view was that the Laurentic was passing through mist which was gradually getting more dense for some minutes before the whistle of the Napier Star was first heard, and that she had fog ahead of her, and that if the officers on the bridge of the Laurentic had been keeping a good look-out they would have been aware of the state of the weather. He found that either they saw the change that was taking place in the weather, and elected to continue on at full speed without sounding the whistle, or else they failed to keep a good look-out. In either case the result was the same—namely, considerable risk of a serious collision. In his judgment the Laurentic, for the material time before the collision, was in weather which brought her within Article 16 of the Collision Regulations, and she committed a breach of the first part of that article by not proceeding at a moderate speed.

A further question which arose was whether in the circumstances the Laurentic ought to have been sounding her whistle for fog under Article 15 of the Collision Regulations. The Laurentic was not in fact sounding fog signals until after the fog whistle of the Napier Star was heard, and the conclusion to which the Court had come as to the state of the weather demonstrated that the Laurentic had committed a breach of Article 15. Moreover, it ought to have been realised at once on the bridge of the Laurentic that the first fog signal heard from the Napier Star came from a vessel which was obscured by fog,, and the engine of the Laurentic ought at once to have been stopped. He must also hold her to blame for failure so to stop and navigate with caution, for that part of Article 16 was peremptory.

It had also been suggested that the Laurentic ought in addition to have reversed her engines immediately after she heard the whistle of the Napier Star. He did not find her also to blame in that respect. She should have stopped her engines, but he did not hold that it was an additional act of negligence to have failed to reverse the engines immediately afterwards.

A further allegation against the Laurentic was that she had ported her wheel. His conclusion was that the angle of the blow was three points leading aft on the Laurentic, and he was satisfied that the Laurentic kept her course and did not alter under the order to hard-a-port given 'at the last.

He found the Laurentic to blame, therefore, for excessive speed in fog, not sounding her whistle in fog, and riot stopping her engines immediately on hearing the fog signal o"f the Napier Star.

The charges against the Napier Star involved the suggestion that a great deal of her story was a concoction. As to her speed at the time of collision, he accepted the evidence of the master of the Laurentic, who appeared to be a very reliable and trustworthy witness. It was doubtful whether it was possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy from the damage done the speed on each ship, but from calculations of distances and engine movements he (his Lordship) estimated that the speed of the Napier Star when the Laurentic's whistle was first heard was at least nine knots. In his judgment such a speed in the circumstances, in the locality in question, was an excessive speed. He accepted the evidence of the Napier Star that she was regularly sounding her whistle for fog and that she stopped her engines on hearing the first fog whistle of the Laurentic. There remained the question of the alleged alteration of helm by the Napier Star. In his view the Napier Star had altered about three points to starboard at the time of the impact, and at least two points alteration occurred before the lights of the Laurentic were sighted and after the fog signal of the i Laurentic had been heard.

He was satisfied that that alteration was deliberate. "Was it negligence? It certainly had contributed to the collision, for the vessels would have passed starboard to starboard if that alteration had not tbeen made. In the absence of explanation of, or excuse for, that alteration—«on the contrary it was denied —he found that it was negligence for which the Napier Star was to blame. Both vessels were therefore in fault.

The question of the apportionment of blame had given him some anxiety, but having considered the matter fully he was unable to see any satisfactory reason for holding one ship more in fault than the other. He therefore pronounced them both to blame in equal degrees.