Pacific Steam Navigation Co. (Owners of S.S. "Bogota") v. Anglo-Newfoundland Development Co., Ltd (Owners of S.S. "Alconda") [1923] ScotLR 333 (01 March 1923)

Pacific Steam Navigation Co. (Owners of S.S. "Bogota") v. Anglo-Newfoundland Development Co., Ltd (Owners of S.S. "Alconda") [1923] ScotLR 333 (01 March 1923)

The collision was caused solely by the fault of the 'Alconda', which failed to heed clear warning signals and did not stop or slacken speed when required. The 'Bogota' was not in breach of any causative duty under the Clyde Navigation Bye-laws, as she was not under her own steam nor crossing the river within the meaning of rule 19, and her failure to give a prolonged whistle blast under rule 18 did not contribute to the collision. The 'Bogota' was entitled to complete her manoeuvre after giving the blocking signal, and the 'Alconda' was bound to give way.

Citation
[1923] ScotLR 333
Parties
Pursuer: Pacific Steam Navigation Company (Owners of S. S. 'Bogota'); Defender: Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited (Owners of S. S. 'Alconda')
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 March 1923
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Collision Damages / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; 'Alconda' found solely to blame for the collision; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled.
Legal Topics
Ship Collision, Contributory Negligence, Interpretation of Navigation Bye Laws, Admissibility of Expert Evidence With Nautical Assessors, Apportionment of Liability
Admiralty Maritime Law Tort Ship Collision Contributory Negligence Interpretation of Navigation Bye Laws Admissibility of Expert Evidence With Nautical Assessors Apportionment of Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pacific Steam Navigation Company (Owners of S. S. 'Bogota')

Pursuer

Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited (Owners of S. S. 'Alconda')

Defender

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Collision Damages / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'Bogota' was at fault for the collision under Clyde Navigation Bye-laws 3, 18, or 19
  2. 2 Whether the 'Alconda' was solely or jointly at fault for the collision
  3. 3 Whether failure to give a prolonged whistle blast by 'Bogota' contributed to the collision

Ratio Decidendi

The collision was caused solely by the fault of the 'Alconda', which failed to heed clear warning signals and did not stop or slacken speed when required. The 'Bogota' was not in breach of any causative duty under the Clyde Navigation Bye-laws, as she was not under her own steam nor crossing the river within the meaning of rule 19, and her failure to give a prolonged whistle blast under rule 18 did not contribute to the collision. The 'Bogota' was entitled to complete her manoeuvre after giving the blocking signal, and the 'Alconda' was bound to give way.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; 'Alconda' found solely to blame for the collision; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled.

Orders

  • The 'Alconda' is found solely liable for the collision and its consequences.
  • The interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute apportioning blame equally is recalled.