United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Kerr v. Screw Collier Co., Ltd [1909] UKHL 99 (14 December 1909)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1909/47SLR0099.html
Cite as: 47 ScotLR 99, [1909] UKHL 99

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_House_of_Lords

Page: 99↓

House of Lords.

Tuesday, December 14. 1909.

(Before the Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl of Halsbury, Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw.)

47 SLR 99

Kerr

v.

Screw Collier Company, Limited.

(In the Court of Session, January 23, 1909, 46 S.L.R. 338, 1909 S.C. 561.)

Subject_Ship — Collision at Sea — Narrow Channel — Firth of Forth — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1897, Art. 25 — Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 and 58 Vict. cap. 60), sec. 418.
Facts:

“The Forth from the Forth Bridge upwards is a narrow channel in the sense of Article 25 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.”

Headnote:

This case is reported ante ut supra.

The defenders appealed to the House of Lords against the interlocutor of the First Division reversing the judgment of the Lord Ordinary.

At the conclusion of the argument for the appellants—

Judgment:

Lord Chancellor—I think it is quite clear that this judgment of the First Division ought to be affirmed. It is admitted that the “Prudhoe Castle” was to blame. It is suggested on the part of the “Prudhoe Castle” that the “Ruby” also was to blame in three particulars. In the first place, it is said that she did not keep a proper look-out. I am not sure that that is established, but it certainly is not established that, if it were so, that in any degree contributed to the collision. Then it is said that she ported when green to green, at a wrong time. It was clearly her duty to port at the proper time, and all the evidence taken as a whole seems to me to show that she did so—that she steered a proper course and ported at the right time.

I have only further to observe that this must undoubtedly be regarded as a narrow channel. It seems very strange that there should be any doubt upon the subject, and I hope it will be clearly understood that in the opinion of your Lordships this is a narrow channel.

It is quite unnecessary for me to go through the evidence, which has been most carefully sifted for us by the Dean of Faculty, because I agree with the criticisms and the judgment of the Lord President, and I cannot really usefully add anything upon the details to the opinions of the learned Judges.

Earl of Halsbury—I concur with what the Lord Chancellor has said.

Lord Gorell—I concur with what has been said by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.

I would only like to add this remark from my own point of view. I think it is perfectly clear that the collision occurred in a narrow channel, and that it occurred on the north side of that channel, and

Page: 100↓

then, when one finds that the “Prudhoe Castle,” the down-coming vessel, was on her wrong side of the channel at the time of the collision, under a starboard helm, it is very difficult indeed to see how the primary blame of this collision should have been other than on the part of that vessel.

Turning to the other ship, the “Ruby,” she would in her ordinary course come round the island with the lighthouse of which we have heard, and following that course would naturally get, if she followed it in the ordinary and proper way, to about the spot where this collision happened. In these circumstances it seems to me extremely difficult to impute any blame to her; and I agree with what the learned Lord President has said, that she ought to be exonerated entirely.

Lord Atkinson—I concur with what the Lord Chancellor and my noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Gorell) have said.

Lord Shaw of Dunfermline—I concur in the judgments of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Gorell.

In this case the learned Lord President in giving judgment used the following language—“I propose that your Lordships should lay it down so as to leave no doubt in future—and in this matter I am agreed with the judgment which Lord Salvesen originally pronounced—that the Forth from the Forth Bridge upwards is a narrow channel.” I am glad that that authoritative pronouncement of the Court of Session has received the sanction of this House, and I agree with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in hoping that that will be taken stock of by all concerned.

Their Lordships dismissed the appeal with expenses.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Pursuer (Respondent)— W. T. Watson— Carmont. Agents— Beveridge, Sutherland, & Smith, S.S.C., Edinburgh— Botterell & Roche, London.

Counsel for the Defenders (Appellants)— D.F. Dickson, K.C.— Spens. Agents— Boyd, Jameson, & Young, W.S., Edinburgh— Thomas Cooper & Company, London.
1909