Canada Steamship Lines, Ltd. v. Steamer "John B. Ketchum II"

Canada Steamship Lines, Ltd. v. Steamer "John B. Ketchum II"

The Cataract validly exercised its right under rule 25 and was not negligent; the Ketchum's persistent breach and improper manoeuvre (reversing at full speed astern instead of hard a starboard) operated from beginning to end as the proximate cause of the collision, so the Ketchum is wholly responsible; the Exchequer Court's finding that the Cataract's late porting was the proximate cause was erroneous.

Citation
[1925] SCR 81
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Canada Steamship Lines, Limited; Respondent/defendant: Steamer John B. Ketchum II
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1924
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Collision Action in Rem / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (quebec Admiralty District)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Exchequer Court reversed.
Legal Topics
Collision, Seamen, Negligence, Causation, Rules of Navigation, Right of Way
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Tort Shipping Law Navigation Law Collision Seamen Negligence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada Steamship Lines, Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Steamer John B. Ketchum II

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Collision Action in Rem / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (quebec Admiralty District)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the descending vessel (Cataract) validly exercised right of way under rule 25
  2. 2 Whether the Cataract was negligent in porting immediately before collision and whether that was the proximate cause
  3. 3 Whether the Ketchum's earlier breach of navigation rules was superseded by any subsequent act of the Cataract

Ratio Decidendi

The Cataract validly exercised its right under rule 25 and was not negligent; the Ketchum's persistent breach and improper manoeuvre (reversing at full speed astern instead of hard a starboard) operated from beginning to end as the proximate cause of the collision, so the Ketchum is wholly responsible; the Exchequer Court's finding that the Cataract's late porting was the proximate cause was erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Exchequer Court reversed.

Orders

  • Action by appellant maintained and counter-claim dismissed
  • Cause remitted to local judge to assess damages