S.S. "Tordenskjold" v. S.S. "Euphemia"

S.S. "Tordenskjold" v. S.S. "Euphemia"

Appeals dismissed; majority held that new grounds not argued or developed at trial should not be entertained on appeal absent a complete evidentiary basis and inability of the responding party to explain, affirmed Exchequer Court finding that Tordenskjold's manoeuvre caused the collision and that Euphemia was not at fault in a manner that contributed to the collision.

Citation
(1908) 41 SCR 154
Parties
Appellant: S.S. Tordenskjold; Respondent: S.S. Euphemia
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 December 1908
Procedural Posture
Admiralty (collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (quebec Admiralty District)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed that the Tordenskjold was in fault and the Euphemia was not liable
Legal Topics
Collision Liability, Appeal on New Grounds, Navigation Rules (rules of the Road), Evidence and Burden of Proof, Pilot Competency
Source Language
English
Admiralty Maritime Law Collision Civil Procedure Appeal Collision Liability Appeal on New Grounds Navigation Rules (rules of the Road) Evidence and Burden of Proof +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.S. Tordenskjold

Appellant

S.S. Euphemia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty (collision) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (quebec Admiralty District)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Court of Appeal should consider a ground not relied on at trial
  2. 2 Whether the Euphemia was in fault for not reversing engines sooner to avoid collision
  3. 3 Whether the Euphemia breached the rule requiring sounding a whistle when altering course and whether such breach contributed to the collision

Ratio Decidendi

Appeals dismissed; majority held that new grounds not argued or developed at trial should not be entertained on appeal absent a complete evidentiary basis and inability of the responding party to explain, affirmed Exchequer Court finding that Tordenskjold's manoeuvre caused the collision and that Euphemia was not at fault in a manner that contributed to the collision.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed that the Tordenskjold was in fault and the Euphemia was not liable

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Exchequer Court (11 Ex. C.R. 234) affirmed