Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 23 QUEBEC ADMIRALTY DISTRICT 1924 THE GEORGE HALL COAL AND SHIP- Nov. 4. T PLAINTIFF; PING CORPORATION AGAINST THE STEAMER BEECHBAY Shipping—Narrow channel—Right-of-way—Currents—Speed—Rules 29 and 38 of the Rules of the Road for the Great Lakes. The R. was coming down with the current, in a narrow channel of the St. Lawrence river, at the entrance to the Galop Canal, and the B. was coming up. The R. duly gave the required signals and, having the right-of-way under the rules, elected to pass to port next to the north shore. Her signals were answered by the B. At a point where there is a bend just outside of the canal the B. coming on without reducing speed, failed to give the R. sufficient room, and the R. in endeavouring to avoid collision with the B. grounded. Held. That the B. in failing to reduce speed, and in not waiting in the inside of the canal until the R. had passed and neglecting to respect the right-of-way of the R. " neglected" some "precaution " which was required "by the special circumstances of the case" and is wholly to blame for the grounding of the R. and consequent damage sustained. 2. Where if two steamers keep their speed they would meet at a bend in a. narrow channel, three hundred feet wide, it would be bad seamanship for the one navigating against the stream not to wait until the other has passed clear. ACTION in rem for damages to the SS. Royan as a result of improper navigation by the steamer Beechbay. Montreal, October 27, 1924. Case now heard before the Honourable Mr. Justice Mac-lennan. R. C. Holden for plaintiff. Errol M. McDougall, K.C. and Charles Russell McKenzie for defendant. The facts are stated in the reasons for judgment. • MACLENNAN L.J.A. now, this 4th day of November, 1924, delivered judgment. This is an action in rem for damages suffered by the plaintiff's steamer Royan as the result of the alleged improper navigation of the steamer Beechbay at the entrance to the Galop Canal, in the River St. Lawrence, on 4th May, 1924. The plaintiff's case is that the Royan grounded on the north bank, .damaging her port bilge, in endeavouring to
24 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1924 avoid a collision with the Beechbay while passing her just THE outside the upper entrance to the canal, and defendant's GEO. HALL case is that the vessels met several hundred feet farther COAL AND SHIPPING upstream, had passed clear and that the grounding of the CORP. v Royan cannot be attributed to the Beechbay. THE The plaintiff's steamer Royan, 250 feet long, 40.2 feet STEAMER Beechbay. wide, loaded, drawing 14 feet, was coming down the River Maclennan St. Lawrence with the current, a short distance above the L.J.A. upper entrance to the Galop Canal on the afternoon of 4th May, 1924, when the Beechbay, 225 feet long, 35 feet wide, light, drawing 3 feet forward and 12 feet 6 inches aft, was observed coming up the canal. When at a distance of three-quarters of a mile from the latter the Royan gave a two-blast signal, which was immediately answered by a similar signal from the Beechbay. There is a bend in the north bank of the river above the canal, and it is customary for vessels to keep as near as possible to the north bank in order to avoid a cross current which sets in from the bank across the entrance to the canal. The Royan, after having given the first signal of two blasts, was brought close to the north bank and continued her course ten or twenty feet from it. The Beechbay still in the canal was keeping close to the north bank and when the vessels had arrived at a distance from each other of five or six lengths a second signal of two blasts was given by the Royan and answered by a similar signal from the Beechbay. Both vessels were still close to the bank and, when a ship's length apart or less, the Beechbay began to change her course slightly to port and her stern began to swing to starboard. The Royan was swinging to starboard around the bend close to the bank and, when the bows of the two vessels had cleared by about ten feet, the Royan in order to avoid colliding with the Beechbay was given a kick ahead on her engines, 20 revolutions, her chief engineer says, with her* helm put hard-astarboard, but being crowded she began to ground at her port bow and when the Beechbay's stern had cleared the Royan's bow, the latter's engines were put full astern so that she would not ground any harder than possible. My Assessor advises me that these movements of the Royan's wheel and engines were good seamanship. The stern of the Beechbay, if it did not collide with the side of
Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 25 the Royan, came within one foot of her and so close that a 1924 deckhand on the Royan was able to touch her with his hand. While passing in this manner the Royan was G E o.HLAL GOA L AND aground on the bank and her port bilge was considerably SHIPPING damaged. It is admitted the grounding of the Royan CRP' happened just outside the entrance of the canal, her master STTEHAME ER says about 100 feet above the entrance. The width of the Beechbay. channel there and for some distance above and below, in- Maclennan eluding the entrance of the canal, is 300 feet, which afforded L.JA. ample room to manoeuvre with safety. According to the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, the grounding of the Royan took place while the vessels were passing. These witnesses were the master, first mate, second mate, watch- man and three deckhands, all eye witnesses to what hap- pened. Against their testimony there is evidence for the Beechbay, that the vessels passed each other between Red Gas Buoy 138 U on the north side of the channel and a black stake abreast of it on the south side of the channel, nearly a thousand feet from where the Royan grounded. If the vessels passed opposite the Red Gas Buoy, it is mani- fest that the grounding of the Royan cannot be attributed to the Beechbay. The first mate of the Royan, who was steering says that the first signal was given when his ves- sel was about the second red stake above Red Gas Buoy 138 U, and that place has been marked on the chart by another witness. The vessels were then three-quarters of a mile apart, which would put the Beechbay well down in the canal, and the Royan would be about 1,450 feet above the Gas Buoy and the Beechbay about 2,500 feet below it. The speed of the Royan with the current was greater than that of the Beechbay and it would be quite impossible for the vessels to meet and pass at the Gas Buoy. The master of the Royan has testified that when he passed the Gas Buoy the Beechbay had not yet got out of the canal. There is further evidence which shows that the passing could not have occurred there. The mate of the Beechbay marked on the chart about 400 feet inside of the canal the place where his vessel was when the second two-blast signal was given, when the vessels were five or six lengths apart. It - is to be pointed out that the mate of the Beechbay later contradicted his evidence in this respect and stated that the
26 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1924 point which he marked on the chart as the place of the THE second signal was where the first signal was given, and that GEO. HALL the second signal was given after he had left the canal. COAL AND SHIPPING,' The evidence of the first mate, second mate and one of CORP. v. deckhands of the Royan, is that the second signal was given THE while the Beechbay was still inside the canal. Five or six STEAMER Beechbay. b oat leng g ths would be from twelve to fifteen hundred feet Maclennan and the distance on the chart from where the Beechbay's L.J.A. mate marked the position of his vessel at the second signal to the Gas Buoy is about 1,400 feet. The Royan would therefore be at the Gas Buoy while the Beechbay was still inside the canal, and this is strong corroboration of her master's evidence to that effect. It is impossible to accept the evidence on behalf .of the Beechbay that these vessels passed at the Gas Buoy. I therefore find that the vessels passed just outside the entrance to the canal in accordance with the evidence of the Royan's witnesses. The witnesses on board the Royan, three of her officers and four members of her crew were in a better position to know at what time their ship went aground than any one on board the other vessel could possibly be, and I therefore find that the grounding did take place while the vessels were passing. The channel was 300 feet wide, the Royan, coming downstream with the current had the right to elect that she would pass to port next to the north bank, gave the proper signal at a proper distance and afterwards repeated the signal, both of which were answered by the Beechbay, but the latter failed to give the Royan sufficient room and crowded her to the bank, with the result that when the Royan, in a very narrow and dangerous place, starboarded to avoid collision, she went ashore. The plaintiff submitted that the Beechbay failed to respect the right-of-way of the Royan as the descending vessel, that the speed of the Beechbay was improper and, if she had exercised reasonable care, no accident would have happened. Under the Rule of the Road the Royan had the right-of-way, the current was with her and was against the other. The Beechbay was going full speed against the current making three and a half to four miles an hour as she approached the exit of the canal into a bend of the river
Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 27 where there was a current of three or four miles which set 1924 in as a cross current away from the north bank between the T Red Gas Buoy and the entrance to the canal. The cross GE HALL CO o A . L AN D current is so strong that vessels going up and down at this SHIPPING place usually keep as close as possible to the north bank Co:P. although the channel there is three hundred feet in width. OTEH AM E ER The Beechbay took the chance of meeting the Royan in the Beechbay. bend when she could have reduced speed and waited inside Maclennan the canal until the Royan passed clear. I am advised by my Assessor that it is an established practice for the upbound vessel at this place to wait in the canal until the downbound vessel is safely inside the cross current at the entrance to the canal and that, according to the ordinary practice of seamen, it would have been wise for those in charge of the Beechbay to have taken this pre- caution and that it would have been good seamanship on their part to have waited in the canal until the Royan had passed clear. Marsden's Collisions at Sea, 8th Edition, p. 421, says:— It is a prudent rule in a winding tidal river, in the absence of special regulations, for a steamship about to round a point against the tide to wait until a vessel coming in the opposite direction has passed clear, and a steamship was held in fault for disregarding this precaution in the Scheldt. The case referred to was The Talabot (1), tried before Butt J., where it was held that it is the duty of the steamer navigating against the tide to wait until the other steamer has passed clear. The same principle was followed and adopted by Bargrave Deane J., in the case of the Ezardian (2). See also the Ship Norwalk (3), and Walrod v. SS. Coniston (4), where the same principle was applied. Rule 29 of the Rules of the Road for the Great Lakes provides that in channels less than five hundred feet in width, when steam vessels proceeding in opposite directions are about to meet in such channels, both vessels shall be slowed down to a moderate speed according to the circumstances, and Rule 38 provides that nothing in the Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, or master, or the crew thereof from the consequences of a neglect of any precaution which may be re- (1) [1890] 6 Asp. M.C. 602. (3) [1909] 12 Ex. C.R. 434. (2) [1911] P. 92; 80 L.J. Adm. (4) [1918] 18 Ex. C.R. 330; 19 81. Ex. C.R. 238.
28 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1924 quired by the practice of seamen, or by the special circum- T stances of the case. The Royan was proceeding at reduced GEO. HALT, speed, she had barely steerage way, and to further reduce COAL AND SHIPPING her speed would have been a menace to her own move- CORP. V. ments. The Beechbay m ade no attem p p t to reduce her THE speed, but continued full speed ahead. It would have been STEAMER Beechbay. good seamanship, in accordance with the principles laid Maclennan down in the English and Canadian cases above cited and L.A. the advice of my Assessor, for the Beechbay to have reduced her speed and waited inside the entrance of the canal until the Royan had passed, and she did neglect some precaution which was required by the special circumstances of the case. It was a dangerous and difficult part of the river to navigate and the Beechbay, in not waiting for the other vessel, took the chance and risk of crowding the Royan on the bank in a channel 300 feet wide. I therefore find that the damage to the Royan's port bilge when she went aground was due to the Beechbay trying to pass too close to the Royan, to the Beechbay's neglect to respect the right-of-way of the Royan, her excessive speed and neglect to wait in the canal until the Royan had passed clear. There is no blame attributable to the Royan or those in charge of her. There will therefore be judgment against the Beechbay and her bail for the damages claimed and for costs, with the usual reference to assess the damages. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for plaintiff: Meredith, Holden, Heward & _ Holden. Solicitors for defendant: Casgrain, McDougall, Casgrain & Stairs.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.