Goodwin Johnson v. The Ship (Scow) A.T. & B. No. 28

Goodwin Johnson v. The Ship (Scow) A.T. & B. No. 28

The Court held that AT & B No. 28 was subject to a maritime lien because it was under a demise charter placing control with the charterer making the vessel liable in rem; E S M No. X was not liable in rem because the damage resulted solely from negligence of an independent towing contractor (the tug); and the claim against Marpole II failed because the wrong vessel was sued.

Citation
[1954] SCR 513
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Goodwin Johnson Limited; Respondent (defendant): The Ship (Scow) A.T. & B. No. 28; Respondent (defendant): The Ship (Scow) E S M No. X; Respondent (defendant): The Ship (Scow) Marpole II
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 1954
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action in Rem / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (british Columbia Admiralty District)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: appeal allowed as to Scow AT & B No. 28; appeal dismissed as to Scows E S M No. X and Marpole II.
Legal Topics
Maritime Lien, Charterer Liability, Independent Contractor, Towing, Nuisance, Res Ipsa Loquitur
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Tort Transportation Maritime Lien Charterer Liability Independent Contractor Towing +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goodwin Johnson Limited

Appellant (plaintiff)

The Ship (Scow) A.T. & B. No. 28

Respondent (defendant)

The Ship (Scow) E S M No. X

Respondent (defendant)

The Ship (Scow) Marpole II

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action in Rem / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (british Columbia Admiralty District)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a maritime lien in rem attaches to a dumb scow when the negligence causing damage is that of a demise charterer rather than the owner
  2. 2 Whether a maritime lien in rem attaches to a scow where the negligence causing damage was that of an independent towing contractor (tug)
  3. 3 Whether proceedings in rem can be maintained against a vessel mistakenly identified as the injuring res

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that AT & B No. 28 was subject to a maritime lien because it was under a demise charter placing control with the charterer making the vessel liable in rem; E S M No. X was not liable in rem because the damage resulted solely from negligence of an independent towing contractor (the tug); and the claim against Marpole II failed because the wrong vessel was sued.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: appeal allowed as to Scow AT & B No. 28; appeal dismissed as to Scows E S M No. X and Marpole II.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as to Scow Marpole II (wrong vessel sued) with costs to respondents.
  • Appeal dismissed as to Scow E S M No. X with costs; no maritime lien as negligence was that of an independent towing contractor.