The Ship Arthur Stove v. The Ship Stonefax

The Ship Arthur Stove v. The Ship Stonefax

Majority allowed the appeal and apportioned liability between the vessels (80% against Arthur Stove, 20% against Stonefax) because Arthur Stove was largely responsible for navigating too close to the bank and suffering bank suction, but Stonefax contributed by leaving the turning basin and creating the hazardous situation by failing to hold back.

Citation
[1971] SCR 943
Parties
Appellants / Defendants: The Ship Arthur Stove and Her Owners; Respondents / Plaintiffs: The Algonquin Corporation Limited (Owner of the Ship Stonefax) et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 1970
Procedural Posture
Shipping Collision (admiralty) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court (liability Only)
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); dissent by Pigeon J.
Legal Topics
Collision, Bank Suction, Negligence, Apportionment of Fault, Navigational Duties
Source Language
English
Transportation Maritime Law Admiralty Tort Law Collision Bank Suction Negligence Apportionment of Fault +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Ship Arthur Stove and Her Owners

Appellants / Defendants

The Algonquin Corporation Limited (Owner of the Ship Stonefax) et al.

Respondents / Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Shipping Collision (admiralty) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court (liability Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Arthur Stove was solely liable for collision
  2. 2 Whether Stonefax contributed to the hazardous situation by failing to hold back
  3. 3 Effect of bank suction and navigation close to bank on liability

Ratio Decidendi

Majority allowed the appeal and apportioned liability between the vessels (80% against Arthur Stove, 20% against Stonefax) because Arthur Stove was largely responsible for navigating too close to the bank and suffering bank suction, but Stonefax contributed by leaving the turning basin and creating the hazardous situation by failing to hold back.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); dissent by Pigeon J.

Orders

  • Fault apportioned: 80% against Arthur Stove and 20% against Stonefax
  • Appellants to have the costs of the appeal