case where there was any danger to either in obeying the rule; the channel was wide enough, and both could have drawn to the starboard without risk of touching the ground or of encountering any other damage; and both were in charge of pilots who were bound to know the rules of the Trinity House and of the river. Under these circumstances I can have no hesitation in giving effect to a definite and easily observed rule, which appears extremely well adapted to insure safety; and in deciding that the collision arose from the failure of the Inga to obey it. Stuart and Vannovous, for Universe. Edward Jones, for Inga. Mann, tried before Sir Frederick Exchequer, at the Summer As- INGA. JOHN COUNTER. Friday, 13th July, 1855. JOHN COUNTER-MILLER. COLLISION.-Liability of a steam-boat for collision between vessels one of which is towed by the steam-boat. This case involved the question of the liability of a steamboat towing a vessel, for damage and injuries caused by the vessel in tow coming in collision with another vessel. The facts will be found stated in the following opinion of the Court. JUDGMENT.-Hon. Henry Black. On the 22nd September last, the brig William Wilberforce, was lying at anchor on the ballast ground in the harbour of Quebec, well over to the north side of that place, and about the middle of the channel of the River St. Lawrence. A barque was at the same time lying at the ballast ground about two cables' length to the northward, or towards the Quebec shore, and a little lower down the river or astern of the brig. The wind was river; and the light from the south-west or down the brig and the barque when they were about two miles dis- JOHN Counter. tant. The only discrepance as to the position of the vessels is, whether when the vessels were just within sight of each other, the steamer was on the port or on the starboard side of the brig. All the witnesses, however, agree that there was plenty of room and time for the steamer and her tows to pass to the south of the brig or on the port side, where there was nothing between the brig and the south shore. The pilot of the steamer being of opinion that he could pass safely between the brig and the barque, and wishing, as he says, to save a certain distance in getting to the wharf, at which the steamer usually lay, determined, with the consent of the master, to make the attempt, and the steamer's helm was therefore put a starboard, which inclined her bow to the north shore; and she cleared the brig by about the steamer's breadth. The barge Onward, which was about eighty or a hundred feet astern of her did not clear the brig, but the barge's starboard side about midships struck the bow of the brig; the second barge (Utility) being about fifty or sixty feet astern with her stem struck the brig's larboard bow, the tow rope broke, and she swung alongside the brig. At the time of the collision the steamer and her tows were running down the river, with steam and tide together, at the rate of from ten to twelve knots, the barges being light. It does not appear that at the time the steamer's helm was put a starboard, any special direction was given to the barges, as to how they should steer, though the people of the steamer assert that they had been carelessly steered all the way down from Montreal. From the circumstances of the collision it appears that the steamer really was, as is asserted by the witnesses for the brig, on the larboard or south side of the brig, when her pilot and master determined to endeavour to pass between the brig and the barque, and put her helm JOHN COUNTER. a starboard for that purpose; and that she really did, as the same witnesses say, cross the bows of the brig. The tide was then running strong down, and the steamer and her tows were, of course, swept down with it. The action of the steamer, after her helm was so put a starboard, was to carry herself and to draw the barges to the northward, or starboard side of the brig. The steamer being the foremost was carried sufficiently far in that] direction to pass the brig, by rather more than her own breadth, but the Onward being eighty or a hundred feet astern had not drawn sufficiently to the northward before the tide had carried her down as far as the brig, and she consequently struck the brig's bow with her starboard side. The Utility being fifty or sixty feet still further astern, would of course be carried still further down the river before she could get on the line of the brig, and we accordingly find that she struck the larboard side of the brig with her stem, when the tow-rope broke, the brig being between her and the steamer. The facts in the evidence thus agreeing with the circumstances which must have taken place, if the steamer crossed the brig's bow, as is asserted by the witnesses on behalf of the brig, convinces me that this assertion is correct, and that the steamer really was to the southward of the brig when she determined to pass to the northward of her (a). It would seem, therefore, apart from other circumstances that the determination was rash and hazardous, and that the steamer ought to be responsible for any attempt to carry it into effect. But even supposing that at the time when the brig was first seen from the steamer, the steamer was either in a (a) The Court will not enter into the discussion as to the precise point whether on the starboard side or otherwise in which one vessel lies to the other at the time of being discovered. (See opinion of Dr. Lushington in the case of The Rose, Gilmore, 1 W. Rob. 1, and in the case of The Columbine, Norwood, ibid. 33.) straight line with the brig, or a very little to the north JOHN Counter. of her, which is the utmost that the witnesses for the steamer state; yet, they also admit that they saw her when she was at the distance of three-fourths of a league or two miles; and there is no attempt to say or to show that there was not plenty of room to pass to the south of the brig, and so to obey the spirit of the rule of the Trinity House of Quebec (b), by passing the brig on the larboard hand. Instead of doing this, the people of the steamer preferred, for the sake of saving a trifling distance, to run the risk of passing between the brig and the barque. They themselves assert that the barges had been wildly steered all the way from Montreal; and they therefore knew that, even if great skill in steering the barges would enable them to execute the manœuvre with impunity, they could not depend on any such skill being used: nor did they give any special directions as to how the barges should be steered, but left them to do as they had previously done. The steamer and her tows had just rounded the Pointe à Pizeau, and in so doing had avowedly inclined their course as they must have done towards the south side of the river, and the impulse of the barges was in that direction, in which the wind also carried them. They could not change their direction as easily as the steamer could; nor could they know that it was the intention of the steamer to pass on the starboard side of the brig. On the contrary, they were justified in supposing that she would pass by the clear channel; and on the south or port side of her, as I think, under the circumstances of the case, she was bound to do. If for the sake of some expected saving of distance or trouble, she chose to take the short and dangerous course, she must bear the consequences resulting from it. The barges (b) Rule of 31st March, 1854. |