Back
1931 Supreme(SC) 10
Privy Council At New South Wales
Commander L. W. Bayldon, K.B.E., Sir r. Nelson Ommanney, Admiral , Nautical Assessors, Russell of Killowen, Atkin , Justice Lords Merrivale, JJ.
United States Shipping Board -Appellant
Versus
Ship "St. Albans" -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 108 of 1929.
Decided On : 26-01-1931
H.G. Willmer, W.M. Raeburn , B.B. Stenham, C.R. Dunlop
Expert testimony using photographic analysis to determine precise locations requires specialized scientific knowledge beyond general land surveying; without such specific expertise, such evidence cannot displace the findings of a trial court based on eyewitness testimony.
Headnote:(A) Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea - Articles 19, 21 and 25 - Collision between two vessels in a harbor - Admissibility and weight of photographic evidence and expert testimony - A photographic picture cannot be relied upon as proof in itself of the dimensions of the depicted object or objects, and cannot be made properly available to establish the relative proportions of such objects except by evidence of personal knowledge or scientific experience to demonstrate accurately the facts sought to be established - The opinion of scientific men upon proven facts may be given by men of science within their own science, provided the witness is skilled and has adequate knowledge.
(B) Expert evidence - Conversion of a photographed picture of a landscape into a map or plan requires specific scientific proof, including evidence that the lens used was accurately corrected to yield a flat field and knowledge of the angle to the horizontal plane at which the camera was held - Such skill is distinct from that of a land surveyor.
Facts of the case:
A collision occurred between an outward-bound motorship and an inward-bound steamship in a harbor. The trial court, relying on eyewitness testimony, found the inward-bound vessel at fault. On appeal, the court admitted new evidence from land surveyors who analyzed photographs of the collision to determine the exact location, subsequently reversing the trial court's decision. The matter was appealed to the higher court regarding the admissibility and weight of this expert evidence and the determination of liability.
Findings of Court:
The evidence provided by the land surveyors was insufficient to displace the findings of the trial court. Furthermore, based on nautical assessment, even if the location of the collision were as alleged by the respondent, the collision was due to the respondent's failure to make the necessary turn and keep clear of the other vessel due to navigation failures, specifically slow speed and delayed action.
Issues: Whether the evidence of land surveyors based on photographic analysis was sufficient to overturn the trial court's findings on the location of the collision, and whether the inward-bound vessel was liable for the collision regardless of the exact location.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for photographic evidence to be converted into a topographic plan, the expert must possess specific scientific knowledge beyond that of a land surveyor. Since the evidence did not meet this standard, it could not displace the trial judge's findings. Additionally, the failure of a vessel to properly execute a turn and maintain a safe distance, despite having the opportunity, constitutes a failure in navigation and liability.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tort
-
maritime law
-
collision
- liability
-
collision
-
maritime law
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- expert evidence
- photographic evidence
-
evidence
Lord Merrivale.—
The appellants, the United States Shipping Board, are owners of the "Crown City," a steel screw motorship of 5,428 tons gross register, and 426 feet in length, which on 22nd October 1927, found herself in collision with the defendant's steel single screw steamship "St. Albans," a vessel of 4 119 tons gross register and 367 feet in length, in Sydney Harbour near to Bradley Head, where is found the turning point and place of passing of the traffic into and out of the harbour. The "Crown City" was outward bound for Melbourne from Wooloomooloo Bay within the harbour. The "St. Albans" was inward bound from Japan.
In its actual incidents the collision, which took place in broad daylight, was of an ordinary kind involving simple questions to be determined upon the usual conflict of evidence as to the exact place of the casualty and the course and management of the ships. The proceedings in the litigation have been of an unusual kind. Under the provisions of the law locally applicable a Commonwealth Court of Inquiry was held, presently after the collision, whereat both parties now in litigation were represented by counsel. Following on the inquiry the now appellants brought their action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (in Admiralty) alleging the respondents by their servants to have been to blame for the collision. After preliminary acts bad been filed the parties agreed that the action should be tried on the evidence given at the inquiry. Respondents however called at the hearing before the Chief Justice of New South Wales a surveyor to explain certain photographs, hereafter mentioned at length, which had been produced by one of the witnesses at the inquiry. Then the troubles of the parties as to procedure commenced.
Before the Court of appeal the respondents obtained leave to call further evidence, and in fact called three land surveyors who gave evidence which they stated to be proof of facts demonstrated by or demonstrable upon the photographs. On the strength of this additional testimony, the finding of the trial Judge in favour of the appellants was reversed. What is mainly in question here is the admissibility of this evidence, and if it be received, its proper effect in the determination of the question of liability for the collision. The nature of the additional proof received in the Court of appeal and its value as evidence raise questions of law and practice of some general importance.
To make the main facts of the collision intelligible the courses of the two ships need to be appreciated. The usual course of an outward bound vessel, upon rounding Garden Island, which lies eastward of Wooloomooloo Bay, is to get upon a heading of 95°-that is E. 5° S.-and on that course to proceed across the harbour until Bradley Head Lighthouse is about abeam, and then under a starboard helm to steam out on a northward and eastward course toward the sound (by West Channel 01 East Channel).
On the occasion in question the course of the "Crown City" outward bound from Wooloomooloo Bay and that of the "St. Albans" inward by way of West Channel to Wooloomooloo Bay brought them at about the same time to the immediate vicinity of the head. At the moment of the collision the "Crown City" had not reached her turning point, and on the other hand the "St. Albans," coming from the West Channel had advanced southward, had the light-house abeam, and had engaged herself in the necessary helm action for making her turn.
The "Crown City" had speed of about 8 knots till just before the collision. The speed of the "St. Albans," for reasons not immediately necessary to be stated, was no more than about 4 knots. The exact course and position of the "Crown City" and the place of collision were in dispute.
The evidence at the public inquiry of witnesses from the "Crown City" and others called on behalf of the now appellants was that the " Crown City " set on her outward course off Garden Island well on the south side of the channel and continue
