Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The Greenock Towing Company and the individual partners of that Company, owners of the tug “Commodore” of Greenock, raised an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against William Hardie, river pilot, Glasgow, a licensed pilot for the river Clyde, in which they craved decree for £123, 10s. as damages for injuries sustained by the “Commodore” through the fault of the defender.

The pursuers averred that on 31st March 1900 the s.s. “Furnessia” of Glasgow, belonging to the Anchor Line, which was shifting from Govan Dock to Finnieston Crane, was being canted in the river opposite Stobcross Quay, being a place where pilotage was compulsory, under the charge of the defender as pilot, and that while being so canted she was negligently permitted to strike the “Commodore,” damaging her to the extent of the sum sued for.

The defender averred that three tugs. were employed by the owners of the “Furnessia” to shift her, and that he gave instructions to the masters of the tugs which were proper and safe had they been duly carried out. He also averred as follows:—“Before leaving the graving dock one of the dock superintendents of the Anchor Line, the owners of the ‘Furnessia,’ who holds a master's certificate, arrived at the vessel with her mate, and having asked for and received from the defender the instructions he had given to the tugs, the dock superintendent ordered the defender to take his station aft, the mate to take his station forward, while he himself went on the bridge. To this arrangement, which is a practice of the Anchor Line, the defender, who is a pilot constantly employed by the Anchor Line, and termed a picked pilot, was forced to conform. The position of the pilot aft was such that he could not see beyond the bridge forward. The dock superintendent was in charge of the vessel, and the pilot was in a subordinate position.” He further averred that the collision was caused through the failure of one of the tugs to obey his instructions, and by the “Commodore” lying in a position dangerous to navigation.

The pursuers pleaded—“The pursuers having suffered loss and damage to the extent condescended on through the fault and negligence of the defender, decree should be granted as craved.”

The defender pleaded, inter alia—“(2) The defender not being in charge of the “Furnessia” in the circumstances condescended on, and the collision not having been caused by his own fault, he is entitled to absolvitor with expenses.”

Proof was allowed and led.

R. C. M'Fee, the dock superintendent of the Anchor Line referred to by the defender, deponed as follows in cross—examination:—“I had no conversation with defender as to where he was to go. I don't recollect telling the defender that he was to go aft, that I was to go to the bridge, and that the mate would go forward. I might have said so. If defender says that I did so I will not deny it. It is possible that I may have said so, because that is the natural position of the pilot when the ship is canting. (Q) You said the usual place for the pilot to be during canting operations was aft. Do you know any other company on the Clyde in whose vessels the pilots, when canting them in the harbour go aft?—(A) I don't particularly take notice of other vessels canting in the river. I have seen a great many vessels canted in the river. I have seen many vessels canted with the pilots aft, but I could not give the names of them. It is my opinion that the proper place for the defender to be was aft. (Q) Did you tell me on one occasion that if the defender or any other pilot wanted to go on the bridge when you were there that it would be the last time he would do so on any of your vessels?—(A) If he insisted on being on the bridge beside me, and not attending to the business end of the ship, I certainly would not employ him again. In my opinion the after end is where the pilot should be standing when canting a vessel in these circumstances. I never saw defender standing on the bridge while canting any ships. I have been often on the bridge acting as master to pass the word along. It is the case I am oftener ashore watching the operations, but I am not in the habit when ashore of giving orders to the pilots. I may have sung out once or twice from the quay. If I saw a pilot running astern, and there was imminent risk of damage, I might sing out to go ahead. I am not in the habit of shouting orders from the quay to the pilots who are piloting ships. I never interfere with the pilots. If I shouted an order to a pilot he would be bound to attend to it. The position of a picked pilot is a desirable position. Picked pilots are specially under our call. They are bound to come to us when called for. (Q) If defender had on this occasion come on the bridge, I presume it would have been the equivalent of getting his own discharge?—(A) I don't know. I would have felt much annoyed. I would have considered he had not the interest of the company at stake. The advantage of going aft is that he could judge the distance from any object while canting better than he could do when standing on the bridge. The length of the ‘Furnessia’ is 440 feet. The defender would remain aft throughout the canting.” …

The defender deponed as follows:—“I then proceeded to carry out the operations. I went towards the stern of the vessel. (Q) Why did you go there?—(A) That is the rule with the Anchor Line people. The pilot has always got to go to the stern in manœuvring in all the vessels, whether canting in or out of the wharf or into any of the docks. That is the position which the firm distinctly tells the pilot he is to take up. I was told to go to the stern by Captain M'Fee. He told me that before he went on board. Both Captain M'Fee and I went on board together. The chief officer was forward on the bow, and the second officer was towards the stern. Captain

Page: 153↓

M'Fee was on the bridge. I was standing on the top of the wheel-house, near the stern. It took me all my time to see as far as the bridge, the night being dark. I was not in a position there to take the same charge of the vessel as I would have been had I been on the bridge. The practice of the pilot being at the stern of the vessel when canting was the rule in the Anchor Line before I went to it. If I had raised any objections to it I would have been told to go ashore.” … “ Cross-examined—I was instructed to go to the ‘Furnessia’ as pilot. I have canted ships many a time at the same place, but not exactly in the same position. This was an unusual cant. I have not canted the ‘Furnessia’ in the same way before. I was not in charge of the whole of the vessel on the night in question. Captain M'Fee, one of the marine superintendents, was in charge of the ‘Furnessia’ from t he bridge to the bow. Captain M'Fee was under my orders at my end of the ship. (Q) The pilot's duty is to take charge of the vessel when on board of her?—(A) Not from the position I was in. I was not in the position I ought to have been on the night in question. I say that not being in the position I ought to have been in I was to a certain extent deprived of the charge of the vessel. If I told Captain M'Fee I was not in my proper place he would have told me my services were required no longer. I would have preferred to have been on the bridge. I have canted the ‘Furnessia’ during the day. I was on the top of the wheel-house on that occasion also. I never canted the ‘Furnessia’ previously at night. I never on any occasion complained to the owners of the ‘Furnessia’ that I was not being allowed to station myself at the proper place on the ‘Furnessia.’ If I had reason to make a complaint I would go to Captain Meiklereid, chief marine superintendent. I did not complain to the owners, Captain Meiklereid, or Captain M'Fee, that I am aware of. The stern was not the best place to be in when canting the ‘Furnessia’ on the night in question. The stern was the proceeding end. I reckon I should see the vessel turning round if I was on the bridge, the same as she was turning on a pivot. I would be on a higher elevation, and have a better opportunity of seeing whether the vessel was having a stern movement or a head movement.”

By interlocutor dated 8th July 1901, the Sheriff-Substitute ( Guthrie) found that the collision was caused by the fault of the defender, and therefore found him liable in damages, but in respect of section 50 of the Clyde Navigation Act 1899, restricted the damages to £100, and the sum of 10s. being the pilot's fee.

The defender appealed, and argued, inter alia—He was not liable as he was not in full charge of the vessel at the time the accident occurred. He did not accept the position of pilot in full charge, he was only in the position of a servant of the owners assisting in carrying out the operations.

Counsel for the pursuers were not called on.