Davidson v. Georgian Bay Navigation Co.

Davidson v. Georgian Bay Navigation Co.

Rule 24 governs meeting vessels by allocating right of way and election to the descending steamer and does not prescribe the general side of the channel for up‑ or down‑bound vessels; the 'Shenandoah' was not liable because she followed the customary upbound track and accepted the 'Carmona's' election; the trial judge's finding that the 'Carmona' was not to blame is not disturbed given the exigent circumstances and peril that could excuse the captain's judgment.

Citation
(1902) 33 SCR 1
Parties
Defendant Intervening; Appellant: James Davidson; Plaintiff; Respondent: Georgian Bay Navigation Company; Defendants (vessels): Shenandoah and Crete
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1902
Procedural Posture
Admiralty (maritime) Law / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada (toronto Admiralty District)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant in both courts; original judgment against defendant reversed; action dismissed; counterclaim dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Rule 24 (white Law) Interpretation, Right of Way in Narrow Channels, Custom and Usage in Navigation, Collision Liability, Standard of Care in Fog
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Law Navigation Rules Rule 24 (white Law) Interpretation Right of Way in Narrow Channels Custom and Usage in Navigation Collision Liability Standard of Care in Fog

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Davidson

Defendant Intervening; Appellant

Georgian Bay Navigation Company

Plaintiff; Respondent

Shenandoah and Crete

Defendants (vessels)

Procedural Posture

Admiralty (maritime) Law / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada (toronto Admiralty District)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 24 of the White Law prescribes the general side of the channel for up or down vessels or only governs meeting vessels and right of way
  2. 2 Whether a long‑established custom of upbound vessels hugging the United States shore can supersede or excuse non‑compliance with Rule 24
  3. 3 Whether the 'Shenandoah' or the 'Carmona' was at fault for the collision given fog, proximity to shore and signalling

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 24 governs meeting vessels by allocating right of way and election to the descending steamer and does not prescribe the general side of the channel for up‑ or down‑bound vessels; the 'Shenandoah' was not liable because she followed the customary upbound track and accepted the 'Carmona's' election; the trial judge's finding that the 'Carmona' was not to blame is not disturbed given the exigent circumstances and peril that could excuse the captain's judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant in both courts; original judgment against defendant reversed; action dismissed; counterclaim dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to appellant in both courts
  • Original judgment of the Exchequer Court (Toronto Admiralty District) reversed