Crown Steamship Co., Ltd (Owners of the "Grown of Cordova") v. Eastern Navigation Co., Ltd (Owners of the "Ethelreda") [1918] ScotLR 312 (21 February 1918)

Crown Steamship Co., Ltd (Owners of the "Grown of Cordova") v. Eastern Navigation Co., Ltd (Owners of the "Ethelreda") [1918] ScotLR 312 (21 February 1918)

Both vessels were at fault: Crown of Cordova for excessive speed in fog and failure to stop or reduce speed on hearing a fog signal, and Ethelreda for altering course to port before conditions for the end-on rule (Article 18) applied, acting on an erroneous assumption. The collision was caused by the combined faults, and damages should be apportioned two-thirds to Crown of Cordova and one-third to Ethelreda.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 312
Parties
Pursuer: Crown Steamship Company, Limited (Owners of the 'Crown of Cordova'); Defender: Eastern Navigation Company, Limited (Owners of the 'Ethelreda')
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 February 1918
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Collision Claim / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Both vessels found jointly to blame; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.
Legal Topics
Ship Collision, Division of Loss, Navigational Rules in Fog, Apportionment of Damages, Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Maritime Conventions Act 1911
Maritime Law Admiralty Law Ship Collision Division of Loss Navigational Rules in Fog Apportionment of Damages Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea Maritime Conventions Act 1911

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Steamship Company, Limited (Owners of the 'Crown of Cordova')

Pursuer

Eastern Navigation Company, Limited (Owners of the 'Ethelreda')

Defender

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Collision Claim / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether both vessels were at fault for the collision in fog
  2. 2 Whether Article 16 or Article 18 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea applied
  3. 3 Proper apportionment of damages under the Maritime Conventions Act 1911

Ratio Decidendi

Both vessels were at fault: Crown of Cordova for excessive speed in fog and failure to stop or reduce speed on hearing a fog signal, and Ethelreda for altering course to port before conditions for the end-on rule (Article 18) applied, acting on an erroneous assumption. The collision was caused by the combined faults, and damages should be apportioned two-thirds to Crown of Cordova and one-third to Ethelreda.

Court Disposition

Both vessels found jointly to blame; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.

Orders

  • Crown of Cordova to bear two-thirds of the damages, Ethelreda one-third.
  • No expenses due to or by either party.