THE GREYCLIFFE DISASTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 3854, 24 January 1928, Page 35

THE GREYCLIFFE DISASTER.

RESULT OF THE INQUIRY.

BLOW FOR THE UNION COMPANY.

/From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, January 13. The finding of Mr Justice Campbell in connection with the Greyclift'e disaster was awaited with the greatest public interest, for much depended upon it. In the course of the evidence the regulations governing shipping traffic in Port Jackson and the relation of ocean-going vessels to the ferry steamers were thoroughly canvassed, together with the position of the captain of a ship in relation to a pilot. The finding, which was against the Tahiti—a big blow to the Union Company—was greeted with the cockadoodledooing of the ferry sirens, for the masters of ferry boat® regarded the matter as one intimately affecting them.

The suspension of Pilot Carson followed the finding as a matter of course. Though Mr Justice Campbell has held that th e Tahiti was to blame for the collision with the Greycliffe, many matters of great importance yet remain to be settled. The marine inquiry was held at the instigation of the F?deral Government, with the co-operation and consent of of the State Government, and its powers were limited to the fixing of blame. The pilot was suspended by the State Government.

Union Company officials have naturally declined to enter into a discussion regarding the question of possible claims against the company. But already claims are beginning to’come in. The first was that of the widow of Dr Lee Browne, who is claiming £5OOO as compensation for the loss of her husband. One of the Sydney papers says that compensation claims may aggregate anything between £lOO,OOO and £200,000. Then there is the cost of the sunken ferry to be taken into consideration, together with th e legal , costs of the inquiry, representing a pretty stiff sum. Sydney Ferries, Ltd., have instituted pro ceedings in the Vice-admiralty Court to recover £30,000 from the Union Company for the loss of the.Greycliffe. As the Tahiti was navigated by a compulsory pilot placed aboard the ship by the State, the owners of that vessel may take steps to make the State liable for the heavy cost of th e disaster. That is an aspect of the matter which is causing much public interest.

The utmost for which a pilot can be sued is said to be £5OO, and in view of the big compensation claims that are expected it i 3 worth noting that the Merchant Shipping Act fixes liability at £l5 a ton. ■this in the Tahiti's case would, amount to £llB,OOO, according to one of the Sydney newspapers. Mention has been, made of the case of the E. and .A. liner Eastern, which grounded in Moreton Bay with a Brisbane pilot aboard. Action was taken against the Government, and the case finally went to the Privy Council. It was lost by the owners of the vessel. But the circumstances may be different in this case.. At all events, a big fight over the question is anticipated. ■

Incidentally, the marine inquiry elicited the fact-that some of the Sydney Harbour regulations are noted more for their breach than their observance. They are described as out of date and no longer applicable to the traffic of Port Jackson. • In any case, there is plenty of hard thinking to be done by the harbour authorities to devise means to prevent a lecurrence of another such catastrophe—to wipe out obsolete regulations and frame new ones that will be observed and in the observance will guard against the possibility of collisions in the future. Another matter of great interest has to do with the responsibility of the captain of a ship when a pilot i s bn board. Which •of them is the real master? To what extent is.a captain justified in interfering; with a pilot who is sober and appar6ntly m his right senses ? A good deal depends

upon that word “ apparently,” and there is littl e doubt that a shipping company looks, to its captain to protect the ship and its passengers, pilot or no pilot. That does not dispose, however, of the question of liability if a disaster occurs while a pilot is on board. Hence the possibility of a claim against the State.