BOTH CULPABLE

Northern Advocate, 21 December 1929, Page 9

BOTH CULPABLE

GREYCLIFFE 'JUDGMENT I 11 1 " | TAHITI RATIO TWO-FIFTHS. PLAINTIFFS AWARDED £12,000. (United Press Association—By Electric . Telegraph—Copyright.) (Received 9.7 a.m.) SYDNEY, December 20. Mr Justice Halsc Rogers delivered judgment in the Admiralty Court today in the £30,000 claim by Sydney Ferries, Limited, against the Union Steam Ship Company, owners of the Tahiti, for the loss of the ferry steamer Greyeliffe on November 3, 1927, .in Sydney Harbour. The Judge held that both vessels were guilty of negligence. Ho apportioned the negligence in the ratio of three-fifths against the Greyeliffe and two-fifths against the Tahiti, and held that plaintiffs were entitled to recover two-fifths of their loss.

He said that both the Greyeliffe and the Tahiti were guilty of negligence, the Tahiti by reason of excessive speed and omission to warn the -Greyeliffe of her approach, and the Greyeliffe because it made an unexpected and unnecessary turn to port without its master looking to see whether any ship w r as close behind and without giving any warning of her turn. Since, however, there Would 'have been no actual collision but for the turn of the Greyeliffe—although the Tahiti would have passed uncomfortably close to her —slightly greater negligence was found against the Greyeliffe than against the Tahiti. f The Judge found that at all relevant times the Tahiti was compulsorily in charge of the pilot, that all orders given by the pilot were promptly obeyed, that the master of the Tahiti was. in as favourable a position as the pilot to determine whether any risk of navigation was being incurred,., and - that there was no interference with the pilot and no warning as to excessive speed or possibility of-danger. ; On these facts the Judge found that the defence of compulsory pilotage had not been made out. On .the contrary, he held that the master of the Tahiti should have warned the pilot of danger arising from excessive speed. This was a case where the master should have made sure that the pilot not only saw what was going on, but appreciated the position. He allowed the pilot to take his own course without question; and without warning, and therefore, the Tahiti was not entitled to the immunity claimed for her under this defence. ■His Honour found on the question of damage that plaintiffs were entitled to recover two-fifths of their loss. ,

The judgment is to date from the first day of the next law term.