Cambo Shipping Co., Ltd (Owners of the S.S. "Rossetti") v. Dampskibsselskabet Carl of Copenhagen (Owners of S.S "Magnus") [1919] ScotLR 59 (05 November 1919)

Cambo Shipping Co., Ltd (Owners of the S.S. "Rossetti") v. Dampskibsselskabet Carl of Copenhagen (Owners of S.S "Magnus") [1919] ScotLR 59 (05 November 1919)

The defenders (owners of the 'Magnus') were not at fault because the evidence established that, due to darkness and severe weather, the master could not have known the vessel was dragging anchor in time to take effective action. The Lord Ordinary erred in substituting the nautical assessor's opinion for uncontradicted witness evidence. Accordingly, the defenders are assoilzied from liability.

Citation
[1919] ScotLR 59
Parties
Pursuer: Cambo Shipping Company, Limited (Owners of the S. S. 'Rossetti'); Defender: Dampskibsselskabet Carl of Copenhagen (Owners of S. S. 'Magnus')
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 November 1919
Procedural Posture
Civil (admiralty/collision) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from conclusions of the summons; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled.
Legal Topics
Ship Collision, Negligence, Functions of Judge and Nautical Assessor, Standard of Care in Navigation, Evidence Assessment
Admiralty Maritime Law Tort Ship Collision Negligence Functions of Judge and Nautical Assessor Standard of Care in Navigation Evidence Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cambo Shipping Company, Limited (Owners of the S. S. 'Rossetti')

Pursuer

Dampskibsselskabet Carl of Copenhagen (Owners of S. S. 'Magnus')

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (admiralty/collision) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'Magnus' was at fault for the collision with the 'Rossetti' in Lerwick Harbour
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in relying on the opinion of the nautical assessor over uncontradicted evidence
  3. 3 Whether the master of the 'Magnus' ought to have known the vessel was dragging anchor and should have used steam to avoid collision

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders (owners of the 'Magnus') were not at fault because the evidence established that, due to darkness and severe weather, the master could not have known the vessel was dragging anchor in time to take effective action. The Lord Ordinary erred in substituting the nautical assessor's opinion for uncontradicted witness evidence. Accordingly, the defenders are assoilzied from liability.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from conclusions of the summons; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled.

Orders

  • Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled.
  • Defenders assoilzied from the conclusions of the summons.