Kingcome Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Perdia

Kingcome Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Perdia

The Ivanhoe was primarily at fault because she proceeded in dense fog at a speed and on a course that prevented effective alteration within prevailing visibility, failed to keep to her proper side of the channel, had no lookouts and relied on radar that was not properly tended; these combined failures justify apportioning 85% liability to Ivanhoe and 15% to Western Spray.

Citation
[1966] SCR 51
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Kingcome Navigation Co. Ltd.; Plaintiff Respondent: George Perdia
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 1965
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Appeal (collision at Sea) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada — Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Collision Liability, Narrow Channel Navigation (rule 25), Speed in Fog (rule 16), Radar Use and Tending, Lookout Obligations, Apportionment of Fault
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Law Transportation Law Collision Law Collision Liability Narrow Channel Navigation (rule 25) Speed in Fog (rule 16) Radar Use and Tending +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingcome Navigation Co. Ltd.

Defendant Appellant

George Perdia

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Appeal (collision at Sea) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada — Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tug Ivanhoe was primarily at fault for the collision
  2. 2 Whether vessels complied with narrow channel rule (Rule 25)
  3. 3 Whether Ivanhoe's speed in dense fog violated duty to proceed at moderate speed (Rule 16)

Ratio Decidendi

The Ivanhoe was primarily at fault because she proceeded in dense fog at a speed and on a course that prevented effective alteration within prevailing visibility, failed to keep to her proper side of the channel, had no lookouts and relied on radar that was not properly tended; these combined failures justify apportioning 85% liability to Ivanhoe and 15% to Western Spray.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Liability apportioned: Ivanhoe 85% and Western Spray 15%