Laird Line, Ltd (Owners of SS "Rowan") v. Clan Line Steamers, Ltd (Owners of SS "Clan Malcolm")

Factual and Procedural Background

Two collisions involving three steamships occurred in the night of 8th October 1921 near Corsewall Point. The first collision was between the steamship “Rowan” and the steamship “West Camak.” The “Rowan” was proceeding at near full speed and entered a fog area without sounding fog signals, while the “West Camak” was moving at slow speed in fog. The two vessels collided, causing serious damage to the “Rowan,” including loss of steering and propulsion, rendering her unmanageable and helpless.

Approximately seven to ten minutes later, while the “Rowan” was stationary and in a helpless condition, she was struck by the steamship “Clan Malcolm” and sank almost immediately. The “Clan Malcolm” had entered dense fog at full speed and slowed only after entering the fog, but not sufficiently to avoid the collision.

The owners of the “Rowan” brought separate actions against the owners of the “West Camak” and the “Clan Malcolm” seeking damages for the collisions. Both defendants brought counterclaims alleging fault by the “Rowan.” The actions raised questions of fault for both collisions, the salveability of the “Rowan” after the first collision, and the causation of loss of life.

After proof was led, the Lord Ordinary found the “Rowan” entirely at fault for the first collision and continued the action by the “West Camak” against the “Rowan” for further procedure. The Lord Ordinary also apportioned liability between the “Rowan” and the “Clan Malcolm” for the second collision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Was the “West Camak” at fault for the first collision with the “Rowan”?
2. Was the “Rowan” at fault for the first collision with the “West Camak”?
3. Was the “Clan Malcolm” at fault for the second collision with the “Rowan”?
4. Was the “Rowan” at fault for the second collision with the “Clan Malcolm”?
5. Was the “Rowan” rendered unsalveable as a result of the first collision, or was she salveable thereafter?
6. Assuming the “Rowan” was rendered unsalveable by the first collision, would there have been any loss of life had there been no second collision?

Arguments of the Parties

Pursuers (Owners of the “Rowan”)

• The “West Camak” was navigating at excessive speed in fog and failed to sound fog whistle signals.
• The “West Camak” failed to keep a proper lookout and did not keep out of the way of the “Rowan.”
• The “West Camak” improperly starboarded her helm and failed to stop and reverse engines in time.
• The “Clan Malcolm” was at fault for navigating at excessive speed in fog and failing to sound whistle signals.
• The “Clan Malcolm” failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to stop and reverse engines timely.
• The “Clan Malcolm” improperly countermanded engine orders during the second collision.

Defenders (Owners of the “West Camak”)

• The collision was entirely due to the fault of the “Rowan.”
• The “Rowan” failed to keep a proper lookout and proceeded at excessive speed in fog.
• The “Rowan” did not sound fog whistle signals as required by the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.
• The “Rowan” failed to stop or reverse engines in time and improperly ported her helm on sighting the “West Camak.”
• The “Rowan” failed to indicate course changes by whistle signals.

Defenders (Owners of the “Clan Malcolm”)

• The “Rowan” was in a sinking and unsalveable condition after the first collision.
• The “Rowan” failed to sound whistle signals and exhibit prescribed signals for a vessel not under command.
• The “Rowan” failed to warn other vessels of her helpless condition by flares, rockets, or wireless distress messages.
• The master of the “Rowan” was solely responsible for the second collision due to failure to sound whistle signals before the collision.
• The “Clan Malcolm” was not at fault; she reduced speed and sounded fog signals on entering fog.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the circumstances of the two collisions sequentially. For the first collision, the Court found that although the “West Camak” had been navigating in fog at a dangerous speed for many hours earlier, she had reduced speed to slow ahead before sighting the “Rowan.” The “West Camak” maintained a proper lookout and sounded her whistle as required. The Court found no negligence in the “West Camak's” helm orders, except for the initial erroneous order to starboard the helm, which caused a negligible delay of about three seconds. This delay was significant due to the short distance and high combined speed of approach between the vessels, but not sufficient to attribute major fault to the “West Camak.”

Conversely, the “Rowan” was found at fault for proceeding at near full speed into a fog area without sounding fog signals, failing to keep a proper lookout, and for improper manoeuvring upon sighting the “West Camak.” The Court concluded the “Rowan” should have reversed engines and ported her helm immediately rather than porting then starboarding at full speed. The “Rowan's” fault was the predominant cause of the first collision, and liability was apportioned accordingly: two-thirds to the “Rowan” and one-third to the “West Camak.”

Regarding the second collision, the Court found the “Rowan” was in a helpless and unmanageable condition due to the first collision but had not been shown to be unsalveable. The “Rowan” failed to sound the prescribed whistle distress signals continuously for over two minutes before the second collision, and failed to display signals indicating a vessel not under command or to warn other vessels of her condition. The Court held this failure contributed causally to the collision with the “Clan Malcolm.”

The “Clan Malcolm” was found at fault for navigating at excessive speed (about 8 knots) in dense fog and for improper manoeuvring, including countermanding an order to go full speed astern and instead putting engines to half speed ahead immediately before the collision. The Court found that even though the “Rowan” was partly at fault, the “Clan Malcolm's” negligence was more serious.

The Court rejected the argument that the “Rowan's” fault in the first collision made her solely liable for the second collision. It held that the two collisions were sufficiently separated in time and circumstance to treat them as distinct incidents, with both vessels bearing fault in the second collision.

On the issue of whether the “Rowan” was salveable after the first collision, the Court found the “Rowan” remained afloat without signs of sinking or incoming water until struck by the “Clan Malcolm.” The burden of proving the “Rowan” was unsalveable rested on the “Clan Malcolm,” which failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, the “Rowan” was considered salveable after the first collision.

The Court also noted procedural shortcomings in the Outer House regarding the recording of advice from the nautical assessor, highlighting the importance of compliance with the Nautical Assessors (Scotland) Act 1894, section 3.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the first collision between the “Rowan” and the “West Camak” was caused predominantly by the fault of the “Rowan,” with a minor contribution from the “West Camak” due to an initial helm order. Liability was apportioned two-thirds to the “Rowan” and one-third to the “West Camak.”

For the second collision between the “Rowan” and the “Clan Malcolm,” both vessels were at fault, but the “Clan Malcolm's” fault was more serious. Liability was apportioned two-thirds to the “Clan Malcolm” and one-third to the “Rowan.”

The “Rowan” was found to have been salveable after the first collision, and the sinking caused by the second collision was not attributable solely to the first.

The Court’s decisions directly affect the parties’ liability and damages but do not establish new legal precedents.