GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

Otago Witness, Issue 3954, 24 December 1929, Page 30

GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

BOTH VESSELS GUILTY. SYDNEY, December 20. Mr Justice Haise Rogers delivered judgment in the Admiralty Court to-day in the £30.000 claim by Sydney Ferries Ltd., against the Union Company owners of the Tahiti, for the loss of the ferry steamer Greycliffe on November 3. 1927. in Sydney Harbour. He held that both vessels were guilty of negligence, and he apportioned the negligence in the ratio of three-fifths against the Greycliffe and two-fifths against the Tahiti, and he held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover two-fifths of their lose. He said that both the Greyeliffe and the Tahiti were guiltv of neg ligence, the Tahiti by reason of her excessive speed and the omission to warn the Greycliffe of her approach; the Greycliffe because she made an unexpected and unnecessary turn to port without her master looking to see whether any ship Was close behind and without giving any warning of her turn. Since, however, there would have been t o collision but for the turn of the Greycliffe—although the Tahiti would have passed uncomfortably close to her—slightly greater negligence was found against the Greycliffe than against the Tahiti. The judge found that at all relevant times the Tahiti was compulsorily in charge of a 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 de’er mine whether any risk of navigation was being incurred, 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 was not made out; on the contrary he held that the master of the Tahiti should have warned the pilot of the 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 Honor found on the question of damage that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover two-fifths of their loss. The judgment is to date from the first day of the next law term.