Grieg Shipping A/S v. Dubai Fortune (Ship)

Grieg Shipping A/S v. Dubai Fortune (Ship)

Plaintiff failed to prove the requisite control by the Dubai Fortune/pilots over the detailed manoeuvres of the Tiger Shark 2; the pilots gave only general orders and did not control how the line tug was operated, and the negligent act consisted of the tug master's manoeuvring (bumping the Sun then veering across the channel); therefore Fortune Maritime is not vicariously liable and the plaintiff's action is dismissed; the limitation issue is moot given dismissal.

Citation
2012 FC 1110
Parties
Plaintiff: Grieg Shipping A/S; Defendant (ship): Dubai Fortune; Defendant (owner): Fortune Maritime Ltd.; Defendant (tug): Tiger Shark 2; Defendant (tug Owner): Smit Harbour Towage Vancouver Inc.; Defendant (tug Master): Brad Duesterdiek
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action in Rem (berthing Collision) / Trial Judgment on Liability (final)
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Tug and Tow Control, Pilot Authority, Limitation Fund and Tonnage, Causation
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Tort Law Pilotage Law Limitation of Liability Vicarious Liability Tug and Tow Control Pilot Authority +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

Grieg Shipping A/S

Plaintiff

Dubai Fortune

Defendant (ship)

Fortune Maritime Ltd.

Defendant (owner)

Tiger Shark 2

Defendant (tug)

Smit Harbour Towage Vancouver Inc.

Defendant (tug Owner)

Brad Duesterdiek

Defendant (tug Master)

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action in Rem (berthing Collision) / Trial Judgment on Liability (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether owner of Dubai Fortune is vicariously liable for negligent manoeuvre of Tiger Shark 2 during berthing under compulsory pilotage
  2. 2 If vicarious liability established, whether limitation of liability is calculated by tonnage of Dubai Fortune or by tonnage of the tug (Tiger Shark 2) and effect of Smit's limitation fund

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove the requisite control by the Dubai Fortune/pilots over the detailed manoeuvres of the Tiger Shark 2; the pilots gave only general orders and did not control how the line tug was operated, and the negligent act consisted of the tug master's manoeuvring (bumping the Sun then veering across the channel); therefore Fortune Maritime is not vicariously liable and the plaintiff's action is dismissed; the limitation issue is moot given dismissal.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed with costs to be assessed in accordance with the maximum units in Column IV of the Federal Court Tariff B