Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 183 TORONTO ADMIRALTY DISTRICT 1925 MERLO, MERLO & RAY, LIMITED PLAINTIFF ; Jan. 31. AND THE SHIP HARRY R. JONES DEFENDANT. Shipping--Collision—Strict observance of Rules of Navigation required— Warning—Division of Damages—Narrow Channels—Overtaking Ves-sel-4-5 Geo. V, c. 15. Held: When a ship ahead after receiving a passing signal from an overtaking ship in a narrow channel deviates and continues to go to starboard, she contravenes Rule VIII which states that the boat ahead shall in no •case crowd upon the course of the passing vessel. 2. That if the ship ahead anticipates damages from the approach of an overtaking ship it is the duty of the former to give warning. On the other hand the ship overtaking must observe the utmost care and watchfulness of the movements of the ship ahead, and if the movements or changes in the course of the ship ahead are not understood the overtaking ship is bound to slacken speed and if necessary to stop or to keep out of the way of the overtaken ship. 3. When both ships in a collision are held to be contributory to an accident, the damage can only be apportioned one half to each, as 4-5 George V, a. 13 (Dom.) does not apply to the Great Lakes. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the ship Harry R. Jones for damages by reason of collision between the plaintiff's ship Sawyer with the steamship Minch
184 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1925 for which collision it was alleged the ship Harry R. Jones MERLO, was responsible. MERLO RAY, LTD. April the 28th, 29th and 30th, and December 16th and V. 17th, 1924. THE SHIP Harry R. Action now tried before the Honourable Mr. Justice Jones. Hodgins L.J.A., at Toronto. Hodgins L.J.A. J. H. Rodd, K.C., for plaintiff. Francis King, K.C., for defendant. The facts are set out in the Reasons for Judgment. HODGINS L.J.A., now (31st January, 1925) delivered judgment. Action for damages arising out of a collision, heard before this court on the 28th, 29th and 30th April, 1924, and on the 16th and 17th days of December, 1924. Broadly speaking the accident happened in this way. The SS. Sawyer, a steam vessel of 484 gross and 259 net tons, 152 feet long and 32 feet beam laden to 13 feet, owned by the plaintiffs, having crossed Lake St. Clair was proceeding in a southerly direction through the channel which leads from Lake St. Clair to Detroit, U.S.A. While in this channel, she was overtaken by the SS. Jones, a steam vessel of 5,315 gross and 4,160 net tons, 468 feet long, 52 feet beam and with a draught of 19.5 and fully laden, and a collision, without appreciable injury, occurred when the two vessels were passing, resulting, as the plaintiffs allege, in causing the Sawyer to get under the stern of the Jones. and to shoot across the ship channel, during which movement she came in contact with SS. Minch, a vessel proceeding up channel. Owing to the injury which resulted from this last contact, the Sawyer was beached in shallow water, and its owners sue the Jones for the damage suffered. The channel in which the occurrence took place is known as the Grosse Point channel in the lower end of Lake St. Clair. At its northern end is a lightship and there are on each side gas buoys, at three different points, those mentioned in the evidence being gas buoys 19 and 20, which are south of the lightship, and 9 and 10 which are still further south. These are spar buoys on each side between these gas buoys. The channel itself is 800 feet wide, and
Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA its east side is nearest Canadian territory and is to the left or port of vessels descending, that is, moving southward through the channel; the westerly side is nearest to Am- erican territory and is on the right or starboard side of ves- sels so proceeding. The channel lies wholly in American HR waters, and both sides agree that the rules applicable to the case are those known as the Pilot Rules for the Great Lakes and for Connecting and Contributory Waters, Edition May 1, 1912, together with the laws relating to the navigation of vessels on the Great Lakes and connecting and tributary waters, being an Act of Congress approved 9th June, 1910, all being found in Exhibit 4. [His Lordship here gives the contentions of the parties as found in their respective Preliminary Acts, and then proceeds.] The sheering of the Sawyer towards the Jones is alleged by the plaintiffs to be due to suction from that vessel. On the other hand the defendants say that the some error or mismanagement, came too far towards the Jones and that if then affected by suction, which they deny, it was due to her own fault. It was not contested that the subsequent striking of the happened between the Sawyer and the The movements of the Sawyer during and before their passing one another are to my mind important features in this case. The Cadillac whose gross tonnage is 3,582, and the length 400 feet and beam 50 feet, with a speed of about 10 miles per hour, was coming down the lake ahead of the Jones and behind the ultimately passed the latter in the channel a little more than half way between the light ship at the northern entrance to the ship channel and gas buoys 19 and 20. The Cadillac was easterly of and behind the Sawyer, to the west and still further behind. When the was overtaking the Sawyer she signalled her desire to pass down on the port side of the Sawyer But she found she could not safely do this having regard to the position and course of the east of the centre line of the channel, just how much is not certain, but is given as from 30 to 40 feet. If this distance is accurate it would give the 185 1925 M , MERIL RAY, TD. v. Jones. Hodgins Sawyer, through Minch was due to what Jones. and a vessel, the Cadillac Sawyer and the Jones Cadillac and this was accepted. Sawyer which was to the Cadillac 360 feet of clear
186 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1925 channel, less her beam, and whatever distance she was from MEEK o , the eastern side of the channel (together 100 to 125 feet). RMAT, L TD. Being fearful that she would get into shoal water if she v. continued on her course on the port side of the Sawyer the Ta Harry R. Cadillac desisted when about abreast, dropped back, and Jones. changed her course to the westward, signalling the Sawyer }lodging that she intended to pass her on the Sawyer's starboard side. This she did, and her master, Walter M. Amsbary, called for the plaintiffs, gives rather important evidence. as to what had occurred. It is as follows: [His Lordship here cites from the evidence and then proceeds.] The conclusion I draw from this and other evidence to which I shall refer, is that when the Cadillac discovered that she could not safely pass the Sawyer on the latter's port side, and went westward to pass her to starboard, the Sawyer moved towards the east, crossing her bow and then straightened up on a course somewhat to the east of that which she had previously been following. That then when the Cadillac passed, at 100 feet distance, the Sawyer, after signalling the Minch, altered her course to starboard and went further to the westward to avoid any danger from the Minch. Now if the courses, of the two vessels, the Sawyer and the Jones became sixty to seventy feet apart, due to that change of course, they were then too near for passing in safety, and the manoeuvre of the Sawyer was calculated to bring her into collision with the Jones, even disregarding the view that suction or interaction at 100 feet or less would draw the vessels together. There are other items of evidence which have a bearing upon my conclusion. When Hill on the Sawyer took over the wheel from the wheelsman, Avelin, as the Jones was passing, the latter says it was -amidships. If so the Sawyer must have straightened up after getting back on her course, because Avelin says that when the Cadillac passed, the Sawyer was 100 feet east of the centre line and only 25 feet east when the Jones passed. The Sawyer had hauled to the east according to Amsbary, the Master of the Cadillac. To get back to 25 feet east of the centre line, the Sawyer must have gone to starboard. Amsbary further
Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 187 says that it was only two or three minutes after the Saw- 1925 yer signalled the Minch that the former took her sheer MERL%, across to the Minch and that he thought that after the R Y firt. Cadillac passed the Minch, the Sawyer was west of the Ti Sam centre line. Hill says that the wheel was slightly aport Harry R. Jones. to get away from the Minch when he took it, and that he put it hard apart to carry the bow to starboard as the suc- H° L dj in s .J A tion of the Jones was drawing in her stern. If the wheels-man is right as to the position of the wheel this action of Hill would necessarily result in a collision with the_ Jones as the vessels were then only 30-40 feet apart. But I believe it had been and was sport when Hill took it, whether from the carelessness of the wheelsman or in forgetfulness of the position of the Jones. It was suggested by one witness that the Sawyer should have taken the eastern side and let the Minch come between her and the Jones. It may be that that was the Sawyer's first intention but her signal indicated that she had decided to resume her original course. There is very clear evidence of inattention on the part of the Sawyer, to the position and movements of the Jones. Hill says that after observing the Jones five or six hundred feet astern, he did not notice her again until she was abreast of the Sawyer's wheelhouse. His evidence is as follows: [His Lordship here cites from the evidence and proceeds.] If the course of the Jones was, as Hill and the other of the Sawyer's witnesses assert, only 60-70 feet distant laterally from that of the Sawyer, when 500-600 feet away (which is only about the length of the Jones or somewhat over that), it would be the duty of the Sawyer to have sounded a danger signal when she realized that fact and she did not do so. This is the more extraordinary, as it was just then that she signalled the Minch that she was going to starboard to pass her safely. Hill says that having blown a signal to the Minch, he had to keep clear. Kelly, Master of the Minch, places the Minch's position as 75 feet from the buoys showing the eastern limits of the channel when he noticed the Sawyer and Jones abreast. Hill puts the Minch at 150 to 200 feet east of the centre line of the channel. If the Sawyer's position is correctly given by her witnesses as being 25 feet to the east of the centre line,
188 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1925 then there was 300 feet according to Kelly, or 125 or 150 1vr ô, feet according to Hill, between them when the Minch MERLO & LTD. whistled ' , and there was no necessity f g o i r v v in in g her any SHW room. Kelly says he had practically all his half of the THE Harry R. channel when signals were exchanged and the Cadillac had Jones. passed about 100 feet away. Ericson corroborates the Hodgins position of the Minch as being well over to the east and L.J.A. close to the buoys. The wheelsman of the Sawyer impressed me as being rather stupid, and his evidence indicated a measure of inexperience and unfamiliarity with the Rules of Navigation applicable to narrow channels. He had charge while the Cadillac passed them to starboard and before and after the change of direction. The Jones, he says, was then one-half mile astern when seen by him and others of the crew. In cross-examination he says 1 mile, and that the Minch was a mile away when the Cadillac went by. These figures are not to be depended on. There were thus, to his knowledge, three vessels in proximity. After signalling to the Minch he says that he again noticed the Jones one-quarter mile away but paid no further attention to her till she was broadside going by. In another part of his evidence he says he saw her 500 feet astern and coming on at 11 miles an hour as compared to their seven miles, and coming closer to the Sawyer. Indeed notwithstanding her gain of one-quarter mile he says he had no idea she was going to pass. This he confirms on cross-examination. His account as to the wheel of which he was in charge differs from that of Hill. He says it was amidships when Hill the mate took it and that the Jones was then only ten feet away. He contends that it so remained till the stern and bow of the Sawyer had struck the Jones, when the wheel was put to port by Hill. He is very confused when describing how the wheel acted and what orders would be given, and cannot be relied on. The Master of the Sawyer was very late in appearing on the scene, and came into the wheelhouse just when the Sawyer's bow after she touched the Jones, swung out towards the Minch and had got about 100 feet from the Jones. Avelin took the wheel again from Hill before the Master turned up, and the latter then took it. The Master
Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 189 confirms Hill's testimony as to the wheel and says it was 1925 hard aport when he took it and that it so remained till M ERLo, the Sawyer hit the Minch and that there was no time to R M A & RAY, LTD. change it before they did so. He then put it hard astar-v. board to make for the shore. THE R. Harryy R. It is practically agreed that the Cadillac had passed the Jones. Sawyer at a distance of 100 feet. She is about as large and HDdgins, L.J A. long as the Jones, and no suction was felt. In considering all the distances given, it must be remembered that they are estimates, only trustworthy when the observer has a trained eye and time to use it. But taken as they are given, the distance between the Jones and the Sawyer, even if 200 feet, is only a little more than the length of the latter vessel, so that any movement by her towards the course of the Jones would in a very short space of time fill up the intervening distance. The beginning of a swerve would create a very real peril of collision, seeing that the Jones was only twice her length behind and was going three miles an hour or 1i miles (whichever version is taken) faster than the Sawyer whose movement forward on a slant would be slightly slower than if she had held her course. The duty of the Sawyer was to have kept its course and speed, and she deviated. This is indirectly contrary to Rule VIII " The boat ahead shall in no case * * * * crowd upon the course of the passing steamer." The position of the wheel when Hill, took it over was " aport," so that Rule 20 (Laws) was bren by going and continuing to go to starboard, after the Jones had signalled and (Rule VIII) in not sounding a danger signal before so doing. Those on the Jones say the Sawyer's signal (said to be intended for the Minch) was taken by them as answering their passing signal. The giving by the Jones of the latter signal is denied by some of the witnesses on the Sawyer, but I find that it was given and that in all probability concentration on the Minch accounts for the Jones' signal being unnoticed. Indeed the position of the latter vessel, only about three lengths of the Sawyer away was such that its catching up and passing must have been and indeed, was clearly anticipated. If danger was anticipated from the
190 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1925 rapid approach of the Jones it was, as I have said, the Saw-MExzo, yer's duty to warn her. This was not done nor any indica- MEELo & Rey, Tire . tion of any kind given as to what the Sawyer was going to y. do. Hill says he knew that the Jones was going by almost THE HIP Harry R. twice as fast as the Sawyer was running. The Minch was J0 • quite near enough, about three ship-lengths away, to re-Hodgins, quire prompt attention. The Sawyer was bound to have L.JA_ . due regard to each of these vessels, and to have dealt with each. Her changing her course to avoid the Minch, with the Jones on her starboard side or quarter, was inexplicable. In answer to all this it is alleged that the Jones was entirely to blame for the disaster because she came too near and caused the Sawyer to swerve from her course by force of the suction exerted by the Jones. With regard to suction, or interaction, between these vessels, it is to be noted that, according to Hill, who was in charge, it was felt when the wheel houses of each boat were in line and resulted in pushing the bow of the Sawyer away from the Jones and bringing the stern in towards her. This would be the natural consequence of a bow wave. Or if the Sawyer was edging in towards the 'course of the Jones interaction might catch her bow as the Jones proceeded and so throw it to port. The wheelhouse of the Sawyer is about 15 feet aft of her bow and that of the Jones is 30 feet from her stern. This being so, the stern of the Jones would extend very much beyond the stern of the Sawyer, in fact about 300 feet. The vessels are respectively 468 and 152 feet long. Suction caused by the stern of the Jones which was chiefly emphasized in the evidence given, would not be felt in that position. Vaughan Williams L.J., in the Olympic and H.M.S. Hawke (1), speaks of the question of suction or interaction as too uncertain to enable any one . . . . to speak positively as to the distance within which such a possible cause . . . . will be danger- He adds: knowledge of the subject is still in its infancy, and as applied to the witnesses in this case, I think the description is unusually accurate. The Masters of the (1) [1913], P. 214, at .p. 251. i
Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 191 Minch and the Cadillac say that a wrong wheel or mis-1925 management, equally with suction, would account for what MEaw, happened. In the case of Caldwell v. SS. Bielman (1), the Msimo & RAY, I/ID. effect of suction or interaction is considered and a quota-V. THE SHIP tion from Spencer on Collisions is given. Harry R. It must be presumed that the master of a large steamer must know Jones. the effect of frontal and side waves made by such steamer when going Hodgins at her ordinary rate of speed in narrow channels, and he should there-L.J.A. fore regulate or moderate the rate of speed and keep sufficiently out of the way of an overtaken vessel. It appears from the case of the Cederic (2), that in a narrow channel, where the speeds and some of the conditions were very similar to those in this case, passing at a distance of 100 feet is considered as dangerous, a view taken in the United States in the City of Brockton (3). I find also that Maclennan J. in Geo. Hall Coal Co. v. SS. Lord Strathcona (4), says: Suction is a force that has been recognized as a danger in close navigation especially in shallow waters, and always results from a too close approach. The explanation of the case of the Olympic and Hawke (ante) as given in Marsden on Collisions, illustrates the onus which must be met in this case. In the House of Lords the Judgment in the Olympic (5) case was affirmed, both the Lord Chancellor and Lord At-kinson admitting the probability of suction being effective in shallow water. If the Jones was in reality only 60-70 feet away laterally from the course of the Sawyer it would seem that the Jones would' be wrong in attempting to pass at her greater speed. The position and movements of the Jones must therefore be considered. Those responsible for the navigation of the Jones saw the passing of the Sawyer by the Cadillac and the whole of their manoeuvres towards the east and west, prior thereto. The Jones was then about half a mile astern, or according to Neely, her lookout, only a quarter of a mile. When signalling the Sawyer and getting what the Master of the Jones took as a complying answer, he says that he ordered the wheelsman to slightly port so as to throw her bow to (1) (1908] 10 Ex. C.R. 155. (3) (1889] 37 Fed. Rep. 897. (2) [1924] P. 215. (4) [1924] Ex. C.R. 32. (5) [1914] 12 Asp. Mar. Cases 580.
192 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1925 starboard and to keep gas buoy No. 9 somewhat on the MERLO, starboard bow, and that she afterwards passed that buoy MERLO & at a distance of fifty feet. Clifford (the wheelsman) was RAY, LTD. V. not called and it was stated by counsel that Clifford could THE SHIP Harry R. not be found since last June. At No. 19 gas buoy the Jones. Master says that the Jones was 175-200 feet east of it, or Hodgins just about in the middle of the west half of the channel. L.J.A. This is somewhat corroborated by Gillis, lookout on the Moll who says the Jones was 150 feet from the west limit when she entered the channel, and was gradually working to westward and that the Moll steered on her. The Sawyer, he says, was then just east of the centre line. The Sawyer's swerve of 50 feet, spoken of by the Master of the Jones, if he is accurate, would just bring her on the range. But at this time the bow of the Jones had lapped up on the starboard quarter of the Sawyer. This would leave, according to the Jones 175-200 feet between the vessels. The Sawyer's version makes the distance 60-70 feet, though Hill also says that the Jones had 150 feet of water clear to the West; this agrees with the latter's statement of her position, but if true displaces the distance between the vessels alleged by the Sawyer and makes it agree with that given by the Jones. The Sawyer took two minutes to strike the Jones, according to the Master and Second Mate of the latter. But Taylor the Engineer of the Sawyer and her Master make it half or less than half that time. The Jones admits she did not check or stop until the Sawyer had drawn within 30 or 40 feet of her, because it was presumed that she would straighten up. If the vessels were as close as 60-70 feet this would seem peculiar as the Master of the Jones admits that suction would affect the vessels within 100 feet. The account given by the Master of the Jones, Macdon-ald, is that the Sawyer was east of the centre line and kept her course till the bow of the Jones had " lapped up " on the starboard quarter of the Sawyer, when the latter sheered to starboard 50 feet and then straightened up, leaving some 200-250 feet between them clear; that when the pilot houses were abreast, the Sawyer came towards them, apparently under a port wheel, and struck the Jones in two minutes. The Jones gave a danger signal when the
Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 193 other vessel was within 30 to 40 feet, checked and stopped 1925 and not till then. If the position of the Jones at gas buoy MERLO, 19 is correctly given, and the Sawyer was 25 feet east MEaao & RAY, LTD. of the centre line, it increases the lateral distance be-V. THE Barn tween the vessels by nearly 180 feet. The question is which Harry R. of these accounts is correct, because if the Jones was 250 Jones. feet away, the first change of the Sawyer's course would Hodgins leave 200 feet clear, and it would not .be till later that L.J.A. danger would become imminent. The second mate of the Jones, Costa, does not pretend that the " wobbling " of the Sawyer which he speaks of had a swing of more than 50 feet so that that cannot account for her movement in crossing 200 feet of water. When the blow was delivered, the Jones was put full speed astern but when the Sawyer swung under her stern they were stopped. The Master of the Jones denies that suction caused the collision. He adhnits that he died not see or notice the Minch coming up, though she might have been visible when he signalled the Sawyer to pass her, and so he did not attribute her signal as to any other ship than his own. Nor did he see the Minch till the Jones was " lapped up " on the Sawyer, although he admits that when she must have been about â miles away he could see 24 miles that evening. He says he looked down channel but fails to give any intelligible reason for not seeing the Minch. Costa, second mate of the Jones, says he saw a vessel, probably the Minch, but that she was not within signalling distance (what that is he does not say) but he says he did signal -her just when coming up with the Sawyer. The lookout says that he hadn't picked up the Minch until the bow 'of the Jones was abreast of the Sawyer's stern, though he could see two miles clearly. The Master of the Cadillac puts the Jones as 200 feet from the western limit of the channel and says that she was further to the west than the Cadillac was when she passed the Sawyer. Kelly, Master of the Minch, says that the Jones was about 400 feet west of her when the collision occurred and she herself was 40-50 feet from the eastern side of the channel. But the important question after all, is whether the Jones, having regard to the previous actions of the Sawyer should have stopped or hauled further to the westward in 9814—la
194 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [ 1925 1925 order to give her a wide berth and pass in safety, or to MERLE, have signalled for leave to pass when it was seen that the R M AY m , e L ° m t ° . S awyer had changed her course. Two of the witnesses on E. behalf of the Jones speak of the course of the Sawyer as THE SHIP Harry R. be ing wobbly and that this was noticed before they got Jones. into the channel. I think that the Sawyer moved west- Hodgins ward more than she admits. While several of the witnesses L.J.A. on behalf of the Jones say they observed the spar buoys or stakes on the western side of the channel and the course is given as tending westward from the lightship down to the buoys known as numbers 9 and 10 and while I have mentioned other evidence tending to place the Jones well to the westward, yet the result which happened could not, in my judgment, have occurred if the Jones had kept as near to the western buoys as she alleges. I should place her nearer the centre of the western half of the channel. But adopting the Jones evidence, the Sawyer's first swing and straightening up being observed and apparently not understood it then became the duty of the Jones under Rule II to signal " danger," and to slow up and stop, or else to go to starboard so as to avoid trouble. It may be that those on the Jones had not observed the Minch, but they should have done so. A sight of that vessel earlier might have explained to the Jones why the movement was effected, and so brought about some action on her part. It may be said that on the second erratic movement of the Sawyer, she apparently became a crossing vessel, having taken a course involving risk of collision and therefore having the Jones on her starboard bow was bound to avoid her. But I think the true view is that the actions of the Sawyer threw upon the Jones the duty, or afforded her the opportunity of escaping her. While " the court ought to be careful not to cast blame too readily upon a vessel which is placed in difficulty by another vessel," per Evans P. in The Tempus (1), there was enough time for some deliberation on the part of the Jones. She had proceeded on her course and maintained her speed till the ships had come within 30 or 40 feet of each other. On her own showing 100 feet is a safe distance and less than that is not. In addition there were three ships involved. Taking the most (1) [19131 P. 166-171.
Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 195 favourable view of the Jones and the Minch 50-75 feet from 1925 the east and west limits of the channel, and deducting their o, beam, say 100 feet, that leaves only 150 to 200 feet be- M o & RAY r , L PD tween the Sawyer and the Jones. This is about the length 1625 . of the Sawyer, and half the length of the Jones and the H v R Minch. Any deviation from parallel lines would therefore Jones. . involve considerable risk. This deviation is proved against Hoddins the Sawyer and it is also asserted by the Jones that her L.J.A. navigation was for a considerable time faulty, i.e., " wobbly." In addition, the Cadillac had, in, full view of the Jones crossed over from east to west to pass the Saw- yer which had then come back towards her former course. The Jones' speed 94 miles was not checked nor was any signal made to ascertain if after the Sawyer's change of course, she still had permission to pass. See Rules 2, 8, and 22 and 26. I think under all these circumstances the Jones was to blame and contributed to what happened. As 4-5 Geo. V, c. 13 (Dom.) does not apply to the Great Lakes I can only apportion the damage one-half to each. What happened subsequently to the collision between the Jones and Sawyer does not come in question here. The consequences of the situation brought about by the Jones and Sawyer are described by the Master of the Jones as " natural." The actions of the Sawyer just before and after the collision were not characterized by any great degree of seamanship or intelligence, and there is something to be said in favour of the view that the position of the wheel and the starting of the Sawyer's engines also con- tributed to make the collision with the Minch inevitable. But the Sawyer had been in a position of peril by her own fault and by that of the Jones and it is unnecessary to de- termine as to exact cumulative effect of her actions after she had cleared the Jones. The comment of the Master of the Jones is justified and the injury suffered by her hitting the Minch is attributable to and is the effect of the situation created by the negligence of both vessels origin- ally involved. My conclusion may be summed up thus. I find the Sawyer to blame for having altered her course after passing the Cadillac and for continuing on the altered course too long, for neglecting to pay proper attention to 9814--lia
196 EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA [1925] 1925 the approach of the Jones and approaching her too closely ô , and executing a dangerous manoeuvre in face of the ves-MrveLoSt ,AY, LTD. sels approaching from front and rear, and failing to return V. the Jones signal for leave to pass and for failing to signal THE s$~ „,Harry R. h er on making her chang g e of course and for violation of ,ones. the Rules mentioned. I find the Jones to blame for neglect-Hodgins ing to sight the. Minch and to apprehend her relation to L.J.A. the Sawyer, for taking for granted that the Sawyer's signal was an answer to the Jones, for neglecting the warnings indicated by the various changes in the course of the Sawyer and in failing to check and stop her engines in time or to go to staiiboard, and for approaching too closely to the Sawyer, and passing too near to that vessel and for violation of the Rules mentioned. Judgment will therefore be entered for the plaintiff for one-half the damages sustained by the Sawyer. Each party must pay his own costs of the action. Reference to the Registrar in Toronto to assess the damages. Judgment accordingly.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.