The "Wandrian" v. Hatfield

The "Wandrian" v. Hatfield

The tug's manoeuvre in attempting to cross the bows of the anchored Helen M. late, without proper signalling and in circumstances making collision almost inevitable, constituted negligent navigation; under ordinary towage the tow (Wandrian) is liable for damages caused by negligent navigation of the tug where the tow had practical control, hence the Wandrian is liable and the Exchequer Court judgment is affirmed.

Citation
(1907) 38 SCR 431
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: The Ship "Wandrian"; Respondent / Plaintiff: Benjamin Hatfield
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 April 1907
Procedural Posture
Admiralty / Maritime (collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada (new Brunswick Admiralty District)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed; Wandrian held liable for collision damages and costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Tug and Tow Liability, Tow Vs Tug Control, Inevitable Accident, Lookout and Signals, Navigation Negligence
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Tort Negligence Collision Tug and Tow Liability Tow Vs Tug Control Inevitable Accident +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Ship "Wandrian"

Appellant / Defendant

Benjamin Hatfield

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Admiralty / Maritime (collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada (new Brunswick Admiralty District)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the collision caused by negligence of the tug/tow or by inevitable accident?
  2. 2 Was the anchored schooner Helen M. negligent (improper anchorage, lack of lookout, failure to slacken anchor)?,
  3. 3 Is the tow (Wandrian) liable for negligence of the tug?

Ratio Decidendi

The tug's manoeuvre in attempting to cross the bows of the anchored Helen M. late, without proper signalling and in circumstances making collision almost inevitable, constituted negligent navigation; under ordinary towage the tow (Wandrian) is liable for damages caused by negligent navigation of the tug where the tow had practical control, hence the Wandrian is liable and the Exchequer Court judgment is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed; Wandrian held liable for collision damages and costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the local judge in the Exchequer Court (11 Ex. C.R. 1) affirmed.