CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Evening Star, Issue 20865, 7 August 1931, Page 9

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

HARBOUR COLLISION WAITANGI AND FLORENCE At tlio Port Chalmers Court to-day Mr J. 11. Bartholomew, S.M., heard a claim for damages by Joseph Potter against Mark Hargreaves. Near the Port Chalmers wharves on March 17 Hargreaves’s steam trawler Waitangi was alleged to have collided with Potter’s motor launch Florence, causing damage to the latter craft to the extent of £l3 19s lOd. The vessels, it was stated, collided owing to tlve negligent and unskilful navigation of the trawler by the Hargreaves, who at tho time was acting as agent for tho owner (W. Stewart Ltd.). As a result of tho collision Potter had to pay 30s for a survey to ascertain the seaworthiness of his launch; and for tho loss of time from March 17 to March 24 he claimed £2. Mr K. G. Roy appeared for the plaintiff and Mr J. B. Thomson for the defendants. Mr Roy said Hargreaves was master of the' Waitangi, and Potter was a licensed waterman using the Florence in the course of his l duties. The facts wore that about C. 20 a.m. Potter was in his launch between the Bowen pier and George street wharfing waiting to take tho lines of an incoming steamer. Tho engines of the launch were running, but not in gear. The Waitangi was proceeding from tho Bowen pier to sea. Potter was in the wheel house and did not see the trawler until she bumped into tho launch, damaging tho woodwork. Tho Waitangi was travelling at full speed, and the launch was not moving. Evidence would be called that in this case tho Waitangi should have kept clear of the Florence. Mr Roy contended that there was plenty of room for tho Waitangi to pass astern of tho launch without the' latter moving. Mr Roy quoted a number of regulations bearing on the case. ' The collision was caused by negligence of the master of tho trawler. If there were any negligence on the part of the other he would nevertheless be entitled to recover in full.

Joseph Potter said ho was out to attend tho steamer Somerset, which was to berth at George street wharf. He took his launch from tho Bowen pier and stopped it between that pier and the George street-wharf to aw-ait the arrival of the Somerset, which was then coming up the harbour. After thb collision the Waitangi did not stop, but her captain called out him what ho was doing there. Plaintiff used the launch to complete the berthing of the Somerset, and next day put it. on tho slip. The covering hoard was broken and ten ribs sprung on one side and thirteen ribs on the other side. The cabin was shifted about Jin, and the cockpit was also damaged. Tho launch had been surveyed and passed as seaworthy about ten .days before the collision took place, but it had to be again surveyed after the collision. To Mr Thomson.- While the launch was being repaired he had to use another launch, which he put in order for that purpose. The Florence was about thirteen years old, hut was in good order. Tho tug Dunedin was near the George street wharf, and lie was between the tug and the Bowen pier. Ho did not think ho was in tho fairway of vessels. Ho started from tho opposite side’ of the Bowen pier from the Waitangi. After tho launch was stopped witness was in the cabin and tho engine was running. If ho had moved 4it astern' tho collision would not have taken place. lie did not sec the trawler coming because ho was looking ahead. Tho_ Waitangi. he estimated, was steaming about eight or nine knots. If the trawler had struck the launch amidships, instead of near tho bow, the result would have been more serious.

Evidence for tho plaintiff was also given by Robert Scollay, master of tho tug Dunedin, who stated that tho tug was proceeding stern first from her berth at the south side of the George street wharf at tho time of the accident. Ho kept clear of Potter’s launch and went ahead to keep out of tho way of tho Waitangi. Tho trawler had room to pass ahead or astern of tho launch. Witness did not see the collision, as he was attending to his own vessel, which was then proceeding slowly ahead near tlvo end of tho George street wharf.

To Mr Thomson: He first noticed Potter’s, launch when he first ran the tug’s engines astern to go out of the.berth. The launch was then stationary. He could not say at what speed tho trawler was steaming. Richard Leftwich, manager of tho Port Chalmers Shipwright Company, described the repairs to tho launch Florence after the collision. Nothing was done beyond what was required by tlvo surveyor. Mr Thomson stated that no opportunity was given to defendants to examine tho launch before it was repaired. Thorofore thero was no means of adequately criticising it. _ Captain Hargreaves would say that his attention , was focused on the tug, and lie did not see the launch. His failure to see tile launch was excused by the

necessity for keeping his attention on the tug. The speed of the Waitangi was very slow at tlio tinie. Potter knew that the tug was manoeuvring to go out, and should have known that the Waitangi was also going out* Nevertheless, lie .stopped in the fairway and did not kceip an look-out. Up to the moment of the collision Potter had, or should have had, absolute control, and that involved the duty of keeping a look-out, as lie was in the fairway. .

Mark Hargreaves (defendant), giving evidence, stated he had: a trawler’s certificate and also a Board of Trade certificate to carry passengers. He pointed out on a chart produced in court tho positions of the trawler and the tug; The was steaming about'three miles an hour. His attention’ was on tho tug. Ho first noticed the launch after striking it, but saw no one on the launch until after passing it. . Had Potter been on dock bo could have avoided.tho collision. • Evidence was given by the. mate or the trawler... . . , The- magistrate,’;:gave Judgment ror tire plaintiff witli-costs,