Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA QUEBEC ADMIRALTY DISTRICT THE PINEBAY STEAMSHIP COM- PANY LIMITED vs. THE MOTOR SHIP STEELMOTOR Shipping--Canal--Narrow channel—Moored ship—Burden of proof— Suction—Canal Rule 19 The P. down bound, was moored on the east side of the Welland Canal, at Welland. Observing the S. coming up, the blasts, as a notice to the S. to check her speed. The P. 3281-1;a 147 1925 l Apr. 11. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT. P. gave three short was properly
148 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1925 and well moored and at a safe place, and as the S. passed she was drawn 'by suction from her mooring damaging her "winch." The S's PINEBAY STEAMSHIP engines were not stopped. Co., LTD. Held: On the facts, that the S. by her breach of Canal Rule 19, without v• valid excuse, and the failure to stop her engines while passing the P., MOTOR SHIP which increased the suction and the force operating on the P., was the Steelmotor. sole cause of the accident, and the S. was wholly liable for the damages caused. Maclennan L.J.A. 2. That the burden rests upon the vessel under way, to exonerate herself from liability for an injury to one which was stationary, to show that it was not in her power to prevent the injury by adopting any practicable precautions, and in shallow waters she is bound to know and guard against the effect of the swell and suction caused by her movement. (The Rotherfield, 123, Fed. Rep. 460 referred to.) Judicial Observation: "Suction is a force which has been recognized time and again in close navigation in shallow waters, and. speed and too close approach are factors which contribute to it." ACTION in rem for damages suffered by plaintiff's steamer Pinebay by reason of the alleged negligence of the navigation of the defendant ship. Montreal, March 25, A.D. 1925. Case now heard before the Honourable Mr. Justice Mac- lennan L.J.A. E. Languedoc, K.C. for the plaintiff. R. C. Holden for the defendant. The facts are stated in the reasons for judgment. MACLENNAN L.J.A., now this 11th day of April, A.D. 1925, delivered judgment. This is an action in rem for damages to plaintiff's steamer Pinebay due to the negligent navigation of the SS. Steel-motor in the Welland Canal. Plaintiff's case is that about 10.15 p.m. on 24th October, 1923, the Pinebay down bound was moored at Beatty's dock on the east side of the Welland Canal, at the town of Wel-land, when the Steelmotor was observed coming up the canal. Three short blasts were blown by the Pinebay to have the Steelmotor check her speed. This signal was answered but disregarded and the Steelmotor passed the Pinebay at an excessive rate of speed, with the result that inordinate surge and suction followed the passage of the Steelmotor causing the Pinebay to strain outwards so heavily upon her moorings that her after winch was torn
Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 149 out and damaged; that the Steelmotor broke among other 1925 rules Canal Rules 14 and 19, and that if she had exercised P v E AY reasonable care no accident would have occurred and the S 7'113112 Co., Ld). plaintiff claims for the condemnation of the Steelmotor o. and its bail and in costs and to have an account taken of s$ P R such damages. Steelmotor. The defence is substantially that the Steelmotor passed Maclennan the Pinebay slowly and any damage sustained by the Pine- L.J.A. bay was not due to any fault or negligence on the part of the Steelmotor and those on board her, but was due to the fact that the Pinebay was not properly moored, handled or equipped; and defendant prays for the dismissal of the action. The evidence establishes that the Pinebay, which was loaded drawing 13 feet 6 inches, was moored forward with two five-inch manila lines and a three-quarter-inch wire cable, and aft by two similar manila lines and two wire cables, when the Steelmotor was seen approaching several hundred feet down the canal a three-blast signal was given by the Pinebay and answered by a similar signal by the Steelmotor. It is established that this signal is a call for reducing speed. The Steelmotor's officers claim that they did reduce her speed before she passed the Pinebay. The first mate of the Pinebay swore that her speed when pass- ing was very fast and the watchman of the Pinebay says that her speed was faster than is usual for steamers pass- ing a moored vessel. The distance between the two steam- ers as. the Steelmotor passed up was put by witnesses at from twenty to thirty-five or forty feet. As the Steelmotor passed, the Pinebay surged and broke some of her aft lines, but not all. These aft mooring lines were made fast to the winch which sustained serious damage. Another steamer had passed up in the early morning of 24th October when the Pinebay surged and broke some of her mooring lines, but caused no damage to the winch. The Pinebay's log contains an entry that at 10.15 p.m. the Steelmotor went by too fast and carried the after winch away, and the evidence at the trial, in my opinion, clearly establishes the plaintiff's claim. The Pinebay surged under a powerful external force; there is no other way for accounting for the damage to her winch. Suction is a force that has been recognized time and
150 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1925 again in close navigation in shallow waters, and speed and PIN A too close approach are factors which contribute to it. Canal ~A MLTD Rule 19 provided that " the engines of steamers passing v. vessels moored to a wharf, pier, or the bank of any canal S$IP shall be stopped while so passing." The Steelmotor did Steelmotor. not stop her engines while passing the Pinebay and her Maclennan speed must have been greater than her witnesses admit. LJ.A. There is no valid excuse for the master of the Steelmotor having refused to observe that Rule. My assessors advise me that the Pinebay was properly and well moored and at a safe place; that the Steelmotor could have passed with her engines stopped and that the Pinebay could not be expected to have had men standing by to ease her lines as other vessels passed up. The burden rests upon a vessel under way, in order to exonerate herself from liability for an injury to one which was stationary, to show that it was not in her power to prevent the injury by adopting any practicable precautions, and in shallow waters she is bound to know and guard against the effect of the swell and suction caused by her movement; The Rotherfield (1). In my opinion the failure to stop the engines of the Steel-motor while passing the Pinebay increased the suction and the force which operated on the Pinebay and contributed to the accident which damaged her winch. The Pinebay was properly moored in a place of safety and the Steelmotor should have passed without causing her damage. No blame is imputable to the Pinebay or those in charge of her. My assessors concur in all these conclusions. There will therefore be judgment for the plaintiff against the Steelmotor and her bail for the damages to the winch and for costs, with the usual reference to the Deputy Registrar to assess the damages. Judgment accordingly. (1) [1903] 123 Fed. Rep. 460.
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.