Ontario Gravel Freighting Co. v. Matthews Steamship Co.

Ontario Gravel Freighting Co. v. Matthews Steamship Co.

The tug and tow’s unjustified starboard signal and subsequent crossing of the channel in front of the Yorkton was the proximate and sole cause of the collision; any failure by the Yorkton to signal under Rule 25, if it occurred, was antecedent and independent and did not excuse the tug’s negligent manoeuvre; the prior written statement was admissible only for impeachment and even if used improperly did not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Citation
[1927] SCR 92
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Ontario Gravel Freighting Company, Ltd.; Plaintiff Respondent: Matthews Steamship Company, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 January 1927
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed; plaintiff awarded damages; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Collision, Contributory Negligence, Navigation Rules (great Lakes), Passing and Signalling, Admissibility of Prior Written Statements
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Tort Transportation Law Evidence Law Negligence Collision Contributory 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ontario Gravel Freighting Company, Ltd.

Defendant Appellant

Matthews Steamship Company, Limited

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tug and tow's manoeuvre and signalling constituted sole cause of collision
  2. 2 Whether the downbound ship's failure to signal under Rule 25 constituted contributory negligence barring recovery
  3. 3 Whether a prior written statement signed by a witness was admissible as substantive evidence or only to impeach credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The tug and tow’s unjustified starboard signal and subsequent crossing of the channel in front of the Yorkton was the proximate and sole cause of the collision; any failure by the Yorkton to signal under Rule 25, if it occurred, was antecedent and independent and did not excuse the tug’s negligent manoeuvre; the prior written statement was admissible only for impeachment and even if used improperly did not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed; plaintiff awarded damages; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (Toronto Admiralty District) affirmed