SEA COLLISION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22660, 23 February 1937, Page 12

SEA COLLISION

FIXING TIE BLAME

1 NAUTICAL COURT'S VIEW ' KAKARIKI AND CARADALE ' [from nni owx comu:sroNT)KXT] MELBOURNE, Feb. 17 A- finding that the Union Company's freighter Kakariki was solely to blame for the collision between it a fid the ; Patrick- Line- freighter Caradale in Port Phillip' Bay on the* night of January 2!> was- recorded by the Court of' Marine' inquiry. Almost immediately after the finding was; announced, James Patrick and Company, Limited, took out a Supreme Court- writ against the Union Com- , pnny, claiming £15,000' damages for alleged negligence in the navigation and control of the Kaltariki l . Three days later solicitors for the Union Company issued out of the High Court of .Australia a writ, claiming from the owners : and all interested iiv the Carad'ale, the sum of £50,000 for damages alleged to> ■ hare been caused to the Kakariki. The .Union Company seeks a trial of the action before a Judge, without a jury. Later, while workmen were completing repairs to the Caradale in dry dock, the ship was arrested when a shcrriff's officer nailed the writ to the mast. Raising Sunken Vessel In the meantime the Union Company has called tenders for raising the Kakariki, which is lying on the sea-bed with only the top of its funnel and a mast protruding. It is- expected that salvage operations will be difficult. The Marine Court gave the following answers to the main questions submitted to it: —•

(1) What was tlie cause of the,collision.? —At about 11 p.m. on January 29 the Kakariki, inward-bound, hud reached' a position Ii miles south of Gelllbrajid' Light and was proceeding on a course of X. 14 dbg. E. magnetic, her speed approximating niue knots. At the same time the Caradale, outwardbound, rounded- the, buoy off Williamstown breakwater, steering S. 3 deg. E. magnetic for about tAvo minutes, and then, altered her course to S. 6 deg. W. magnetic, her speed being about eight knots. Had both ships kept their respective courses they would have passed clear of each other, port side to port side, but the Kakariki altered course to port and, bringing the Caradale to bear right ahead, still kept altering course to port, and thus made the collision inevitable.

(2) For what length of time did the Kakariki remain afloat after the collision?— Only for about two minutes, going straight down.. She "just dropped like a stone," according to the evidence, Boats Lowered Promptly

(3) Were the boats of the Caradale promptly lowered and manned, and was ; all possible assistance given to the Kakariki after the collision?— Yes.

(4) Were both vessels navigated with proper and seamanlike care, and with duo regard to the Navigation (Collision) Regulations?— No. Proper and seamanlike care "was exercised in the navigation of the Caradale, but was not exercised in tlie navigation of the Kakariki.

(а). Which, of the two vessels is,, or are both,, to blame fbr.the collision? — The Kakariki is solely to blame. (б) Was the collision caused by any act or default an the part at any person or persons, and, if so, of whom? — The collision was caused by the fault of the master o2 the Kakariki, Captain Thomas William White, in:—(a) Failing to keep out of the way of the Caradale when, by his action in altering course to- port, the Kakariiki Became the crossing ship* with the CBtedalo on her starboard side;' (b> being the givLngway ship, not avoiding crossing ahead of the Caradale, thus committing breaches of Articles 19 and 22 respectively of the schedule to the Navigation (Collision) llegulations. Verdict at the Inquest

(7) If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, did such i act constitute a gross act of misconduct within tlie meaning of the term as used in Section 372 of the Navigation Act on the part of such person or persons?— The default on the part of the master of the Kakariki did not constitute a gross act of misconduct. , Only three bodies of the five victims of tljfc collision—all members of the Kakariki's crew—have been found. At an inquest which followed the announcel- - of the Marine Court's decisions the coroner recorded a finding of deaths by misadventure. He said that he would l not name anyone as responsible, but hecould not find that the circumstances leading to the drowning of the three men were purely accidental'.