[COLONIAL COURT OF ADMIRALTY.]

1941 Present: Howard C.J. (President).

TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF TUTICORIN v.
WILLIS S.S. COMPANY, LIMITED.

Cause No.1 of 1939.

Action for damages-Collision between two ships-Defend ant's ship towed to berth by harbour pilot-Failure- to give warning to pilot-Negligence of defendant.

Plaintiff sued the defendants for damages sustained by reason of a collision that occurred in the Colombo Habour between the s.s. Harborough owned by the defendants and the. dredger s.s. Tuticorin owned by the plaintiffs, which collision was due to the negligent and improper navigation of those on board the S.S. Harborough.

It was conceded that at the time of the collision the" Tuticorin " was at anchor in the Colombo Harbour which is subject to the law of compulsory pilotage and that S.S. Harborough was being navigated into a berth .by a Pilot acting under the control and orders of the Government of Ceylon.

It was also in evidence that although the s.s. Harborough had a right-.handed screw and as a rule when the helm is put to starboard goes to starboard, sometimes for some unls.nown reason she would swing to port and that the Captain had not warned the pilot of this before he took the ship to berth.

Held, that the defendants had not discharged the burden imposed upon them of establishing that the collision was occasioned by no fault on their part ,Or that it was solely the fault of the pilot and that consequently they were liable in damages,

THIS was an action instituted in the Colonial .Court of 'Admiralty.

The facts are stated in the head note.

E. F. N. Gratiaen, instructed by F. J. & G. de Saram, for plaintiffs.

The dredger" Tuticorin" was at anchor when the s.s. Harborough,.

which was in motion, came into collision with it. The fact that the plaintiff's vessel was, at the time of the collision, at anchor and could be seen was prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. The burden of proof was upon them to rebut the presumption of liability_ .

" The Indus".[ (1887) 12 P. D. 46. ]

It is the duty of the master and crew to render proper assistance to the Pilot-s.s. Alexander Shukoff v. s.s. Gothland[(1921) 1 A .C. 216.].

It is the duty of the master to warn the Pilot of the tendency of a ship to swing to port when the helm is put to starboard.

N. K. Choksy (with S. J. Kadirgamar), instructed by Julius & Creasy, for defendants.-No liability attaches to the defendants because (1) the collision was caused by no fault on their part, (2) it was due to inevitable accident, (3) it was solely the fault of a pilot who was on board by compulsion of law. -

The cause "of the collision was" a cause not produced by the defendants; it was a cause the result of which the defendants' could not avoid. "The Merchant Prince". 3[(1892) P. D. 187.]

An outside influence and not something in the ship herself was responsible for the swing in the wrong direction. This outside influence was the dragging of the ship in shallow water.

The Pilot was at fault in two particulars, viz. :-(a) in falling to requisition a tug, (b) in approaching berth 28 with too much headway.

A ship of the Harborough's displacement should not be brought to her moorings without a tug.

Headway should have been taken off the ship before it reached buoy 33.

There was no "duty to warn" the Pilot of the unusual swinging to port, contrary to the helm, as it had occurred only once before and may well have been due to extraneous causes. A single such occurrence long before does not indicate any defect in the steering gear; the Captain of the Harborough had no reason to anticipate that it would ever occur again The evidence' is that the Captain did warn the Pilot as soon as the latter gave the order to put the helm to starboard. The pilot had the opportunity .of countermanding the order but did not do so and chose to ta