THETIS DISASTER

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 22, 27 January 1944, Page 6

THETIS DISASTER

SEQUEL IN COURT

WIDOWS WIN ACTIONS,

Judgment for the plaintiffs, two widows, against Cammell' Laird and Co., Ltd., for an amount to be ascertained, was. given by Mr. Justice Wrottesley in the King's Bench Division in the consolidated: test actions arising out of the Thetis submarine disaster in Liverpool Bay on June 1, 1939, states a London paper. The hearing of the case lasted eight days, and the costs amounted to between £15,000 and £20,000. The plaintiffs, Mrs. Rose Duncan, of Edinburgh, and Mrs. Mabel Mary' Jane Craven, of Birkenhead, claimed damages for the deaths of their husbands, due to negligence.

The proceedings were to determine liability for the loss of the submarine as between the builders and various other persons concerned. < In. addition to Cammell Laird and Company, the defendants included Mrs. Matilda Ann Hambrook, widow of a leading seaman, Lieut. Frederick Greville Woods, R.N., one of the survivors, Mrs.' Sybil Bolus, widow of Lt.-Com-mander G. H. Bolus, captain of the Thetis, and, Wailes Dove Bitumastic, Ltd., of Hebburn, Durham. 99 LIVES LOST. The Thetis, which was undergoing submergence trials, had on board 103 persons, and all except four lost their lives. In the autumn of 1939 : the Thetis was refloated, and, under the name of Thunderbolt, gave valuable service in the war. She has since been lost. .. ■;.■■.■■., ■: •■■:.•. V■■ ■• . Mr.' Justice Wrottesley said that it was a matter of doubt whether the vessel, when she left Birkenhead for her trial, was in the condition stated in the "trim" sheet. Lieut. Woods, who was in charge forward of the control-room, saw that something was wrong with the trim. It did not occur to him that the testcock of No. 5 torpedo-tube, which indicated the amount of water in the tube, was out of order. In fact, the hole in the test-cock had been filled with paint. When, with the assistance of Leading Seaman Hambrook, the rear door of No. 5 torpedo-tube was opened, water gushed through the bow-cap and torpedo-tube, and the vessel dipped and went down by the head. BUILDERS' RESPONSIBILITY. Under the(contract for building the submarine Cammell Laird were bound to paint the inside of the torpedotubes. The work was carried out under a sub-contract by Wailes Dove Bitumastic, Ltd., but the hole in the testcock of No. 5 torpedo-tube was. blocked by being completely coated over. In fact, two out of the six forward torpedo-tubes of the submarine were out of order. In ho sense were Lieut; Wdqds and Hambrook overseers or responsible for seeing that the wprk done in the ship complied with the contract. They were attached to the ship for instruction. Neither could have been expected to be on,guard, against what happened in this 'case when the whole of the hole in the test-Cock- was completely blocked by being enamelled over before the Thetis sailed. "Lieut. Woods and Leading Seaman Hambrook," added the Judge, "were in the end misled by the state of the test-cock. So far as the case against Lieut. Woods and Mrs. Hambrook is concerned, there has not been established to my satisfaction the failure of any duty by Lieut. Woods and Leading Seaman Hambrook to take reasonable care. , "SLOVENLY PIECE OF WORK." "The man of the Bitumastic company who did this painting did a slovenly piece of work. Two of these holes were obstructed, and a cursory inspection would have shown them to have been blocked." On behalf of the Bitumastic company it was said that they were humble painters. This argument was not available to Cammell Laird. In fact, their master painter inspected the work.-and should have been in a position to notice the blocked hole. His lordship thought that the subcontract did not absolve Cammell Laird from seeing that the' work was properly done. They sent none of their highly qualified engineering staff to see that the painting was so done as to leave the safety devices on the rear doors of the torpedo-tubes in order. The Bitumastic company had turned what was a harmless thing into a dangerous thing, but he did not consider that they owed any duty to Mr. Dimlean or Mr. Craven in which they could be said to have failed.

Concluding, Mr. Justice Wrottesley said: "In my view each of the plaintiffs succeeds in establishing the liability of Cammell Laird for the loss of these wage-earners, on the ground of negligence.

"They failed to discover the defect in the test-cock of No. 5 torpedo-tube, and this they would have detected if they had exercised proper care. As against the other defendants, the claim against each of them fails."

His Lordship entered judgment for Mrs. Duncan and Mrs. Craven, against Cammell Laird and Company, with costs. Judgment was entered for the remaining deefndants with costs against Cammell Laird. A stay of execution was granted, pending consideration of the question of an appeal.