Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Joseph Clark, ropemaker, Greenock, raised an action for £200 damages against the Glasgow, Dublin, and Londonderry Steam—Packet Company, Limited, having an office and carrying on business at 52 Robertson Street, Glasgow, the registered owners of the steamship “Olive.”

The pursuer averred—“(Cond. 2) In or about the month of September 1899, the defenders advertised that the steamer ‘Olive’ would leave Glasgow for Dublin on Saturday 16th September 1899, and would call at the Steamboat Quay, Greenock. The steamer arrived opposite the said quay about six o'clock afternoon of the advertised date, and one of the deck hands or employees on board the boat threw a line or rope from the steamer to the quay inorder that the boat might be made fast to the quay. When this line or rope was thrown the steamer was going at too great a speed. (Cond. 3) There are two rows of pillars or pawls on the said quay to which ships can be made fast. The first row is at or near the edge of the quay, and each pawl or pillar in it curves away from the sea, and is provided at the tip of the curve with two iron horns. The second row is several yards back from the edge of the quay, and each pawl or pillar in it has an iron ‘bonnet’ or head. The iron horns and ‘bonnets’ are for the purpose of preventing the loop at the end of ships’ ropes from slipping off the pawls or pillars. When the line or rope was thrown from the ‘Olive,’ one of the employees on board directed the man to whom it was thrown to place the loop at the end over one of the iron pawls or pillars in the second row, that is, one with a ‘bonnet’ or head, and this was done in accordance with said directions. Owing to the light weight of the steamer and the

Page: 719↓

height of the tide, the deck was at a considerable height above the top of the iron pillars on the quay. The second row of pillars, over one of which the rope was cast, is higher than the first, and the defenders, or those for whom they are responsible, carelessly and negligently placed the loop of the rope over one of the pillars in the second row instead of one in the first row, and having so done they carelessly and negligently allowed the rope to lie on the quay at the side of a pillar in the first row. … The vessel was not moored in a proper manner. The ordinary and only safe practice at the steamboat quay when vessels are drawing little water, and at high tide, is to place the loop of the rope over a pawl in the first row. (Cond. 4) On the said 16th day of September, and at the said time, the pursuer was standing on the Steamboat Quay, considerably to the west of the pillar to which the stern rope was attached. The steamer had so much way on that she carried past the position of the pursuer. The strain put upon the foresaid rope by the rate of the steamer and the distance she carried on caused the rope to spring over the pillar in the first row beside which it should not have rested in the exercise of due care and diligence on the part of the defenders. It swung violently across the quay against the pursuer and knocked him down, thereby breaking one of his legs. Had the ordinary and only safe practice of mooring in the circumstances been followed by the defenders the pursuer would not have been injured. In any event the defenders, or those for whom they are responsible, ought to have checked the speed of the steamer by reversing her engines, and also to have put the rope right round a pawl in the first row before or immediately after placing the loop of the rope over a pawl of the second row, and further, they culpably failed to warn the pursuer of the danger attending the method of mooring which they adopted, which danger was well known to them.”

The pursuer pleaded—“The pursuer having suffered loss, injury, and damage through the fault of the defenders, is entitled to reparation thereof; and the sum sued for in name of reparation being reasonable in amount the pursuer is entitled to decree as concluded for, with expenses.”

The defenders explained that the vessel was moored in a proper manner and in accordance with the ordinary practice, that the position was an obviously dangerous one for the pursuer to be in, as several ropes were being thrown from the steamer for the purpose of mooring her to the quay, all round him, and that he should have got out of their way and into a place of safety, and that the pursuer was cautioned to stand clear but did not do so.

The defenders pleaded, inter alia—(1) “The pursuer's averments are irrelevant.” On 12th January 1901 the Lord Ordinary ( Kyllachy) sustained the first plea-in-law for the defenders, and in respect thereof dismissed the action, and decerned.

The pursuer reclaimed, and maintained that he was entitled to an issue.

Argued for the defenders and respondents—(l) The pursuer had not averred that he had any business occupation to take him to the harbour. It must consequently be assumed that he had no right to be where he was. He had therefore no ground of action, and the action should be dismissed as irrelevant— Smith v. Highland Railway Company, November 1, 1888, 16 R. 57, opinion of Lord President Inglis, p. 59. (2) Even if the pursuer had a right to be upon the quay, he had no right to be standing so near the front of the pier as to be in the way of steamers' ropes. Such a position was so obviously a dangerous one that on his own statement of the facts he had been guilty of contributory negligence. On this ground also the action was irrelevant.

At advising—