354 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XVIII. 1918 QUEBEC ADMIRALTY DISTRICT. march 2. CANADA STEAMSHIP LINES, LIMITED, PLAINTIFF ; V. MONTREAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, LIMITED, • DEFENDANT, Collision—Canal—Passing vessels—Liability---Proximate cause. Where vessels passing one another in a canal have exchanged the proper signals, and were properly navigated, the fact that one took a starboard course to avoid collision, and in doing so struck the canal banks and was damaged, does not give her a right of action against the other; where the damage was about the bilge or bottom of the vessel it is evidence of its having been caused by an obstruction on the bottom of the canal, and not by the banks. A CTION in personam for damage to a ship. Tried before the Honourable Mr. Justice Maclen-nan, Deputy Local Judge of the Quebec Admiralty District, at Montreal, Que., February 21 and March 2, 1918. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., for plaintiff. MACLENNAN, Dep. Loc. J. (March 2, 1918) delivered judgment. This is an action in personam in which plaintiff, as the owner of the steamship "Glenellah", seeks to recover damages from the defendant, owner of the steamship "Kinmount". The plaintiff's case is that on the evening of Sep-tember 1, 1913, the "Glenellah" was proceeding eastbound down the Soulanges Canal when she met the "Kinmount" going up westbound coming up the canal; that when the two ships were about a quarter of a mile apart the "Glenellah" sounded a passing
'VOL. XVIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. signal of one blast on her whistle; that the "Kin-mount" immediately answered by one blast on her whistle, and that after exchanging these signals the 'master of the "Glenellah" ported her helm and the steamer was directed to the southern or starboard side of the canal,' which, at the place . the ,steamers met, is about 200 F f éet in width at the 'top . and 100 feet at the bottom, and about 15 feet deep; that the "Kinmount" failed to direct her course to star- board and in order to avoid a collision the "Glenel- lah" was forced into the canal bank on her star board side and was damaged. Plaintiff claims that the striking on the bank by the "Glenellah" damages and loss consequent thereon were occasion- ed by the negligent "and improper navigation of those in charge of the "Kinmount". The defendant denies the material allegations of the plaintiff's statement of claim and alleges that,. if plaintiff had any 'claini against defendant the plaintiff, forfeited and lost thesame by failure and- neglect to present a claim within a reasonable time; that' if the "Glenellah" came in contact with the canal bank it was due to her own faulty navigation, and that the "Kinmoùnt" took all Usual and proper measures and precautions to avoid a collision. These steamships were approximately 250 feet long and 43 feet wide and both were loaded capacity. The proper signals were given just be- fore they met in the canal. 'The plaintiff's case is. that the "Glenellah's" starboard side struck the southern bank of the canal and that she was forced into that position by the "Kinmount" not giving her sufficient room.to pass safely. Some temporary repairs were made to the "Glleenelllah" ",, and she did 'not go into drydock until some months later, when 355 19 S A1N T DA HI P LIVES MONTREAL _• TRANSPORTA- TION CO . R T e I a O s N ons O fo . r Judgment. . . and the ' fo
356 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XVIII. 1918 upon examination it was found that the damages CANAAA STEADiSH IP which she had sustained were not to her side, but LIT N?ES! to the plates on her bottom, commencing from about MONTREAL TRANSPORTA- 5 feet from the turn of the starboard bilge towards TION CO. Reasons for the keel plate. None of the damaged plates of the Judgment. bottom was closer than 5 feet to the bilge. Whatever the obstruction was which came•into contact with the "Glenellah", it is evident that such obstruction was underneath the steamer. If the point of impact had been between the "Glenellah's" starboard side and the south bank of the canal the damages would have been to the side plates and not to the plates forming the bottom of the steamer. The part of the steamer which suffered damage is conclusive evidence that the obstruction must have been in the bottom of the canal and that the steamer did not strike its starboard side against the canal bank. My assessors advise me that both steamers appear to have been properly navigated. The plaintiff has not proved the case alleged against the defendant and has not established that the damages to the "G-lenellah" were occasioned by any neglect or improper navigation of those in charge of the "Kinmount". Under these circumstances it is not necessary to deal with the question of the delay on the part of the plaintiff in presenting its claim against the defendant. The plaintiff's action is therefore dismissed with costs. Action dismissed. Solicitors for plaintiff, (first) : Cowan, Towers & Cowan, (afterwards) : Rowell,Reid, Wood & Wright. Solicitors for defendant : Meredith, Holden, Hague, Shaughnessy & Heward.
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.