The Ship "Cuba" v. McMillan

The Ship "Cuba" v. McMillan

The vessels were in a 'passing' position governed by seamanship rather than by a specific statutory rule requiring a particular helm; the Cuba was wholly at fault because she unnecessarily persisted on the wrong side, starboarded her helm when she should have ported on seeing Elliott port hard, signalled port then reversed engines causing her head to turn starboard and creating the collision; any failure by Elliott to slacken earlier (art.18) did not in fact contribute because Cuba could have avoided the collision by proper seamanship and Elliott's later actions were proper in the agony of collision; appeal dismissed.

Citation
(1896) 26 SCR 651
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: The Ship "Cuba"; Respondents / Plaintiffs: Ronald McMillan and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1896
Procedural Posture
Admiralty / Maritime Collision Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (nova Scotia Admiralty)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Exchequer Court (Admiralty) affirming Cuba wholly at fault upheld.
Legal Topics
Collision Rules of the Road, Narrow Channel Navigation, Passing Vs Crossing Vs Meeting, Contributory Negligence, Statutory Presumption of Fault, Agony of Collision Maneuvres
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Torts Negligence Statutory Interpretation Collision Rules of the Road Narrow Channel Navigation Passing Vs Crossing Vs Meeting Contributory Negligence +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Ship "Cuba"

Appellant / Defendant

Ronald McMillan and Others

Respondents / Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Admiralty / Maritime Collision Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (nova Scotia Admiralty)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which statutory navigation rule applied (meeting/crossing/passing)
  2. 2 Whether the Cuba breached navigation duties in a narrow channel (art.21)
  3. 3 Whether Elliott breached art.18 (slacken/stop/reverse) and whether that contributed to collision

Ratio Decidendi

The vessels were in a 'passing' position governed by seamanship rather than by a specific statutory rule requiring a particular helm; the Cuba was wholly at fault because she unnecessarily persisted on the wrong side, starboarded her helm when she should have ported on seeing Elliott port hard, signalled port then reversed engines causing her head to turn starboard and creating the collision; any failure by Elliott to slacken earlier (art.18) did not in fact contribute because Cuba could have avoided the collision by proper seamanship and Elliott's later actions were proper in the agony of collision; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Exchequer Court (Admiralty) affirming Cuba wholly at fault upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents
  • Judgment below affirmed holding the ship "Cuba" solely liable