Greycliffe Disaster

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 826, 21 November 1929, Page 9

Greycliffe Disaster

COURT DELIVERS FINDING Ferry Boat’s Fatal Turn TAHITI EXCEEDED REGULATION SPEED it. ailed P.A. — By Telegraph — Copyright, Received 10.30 a.m. SYDNEY, Today. THE Admiralty Court, before which Sydney Ferries, Ltd., are claiming: .£30,000 damages from the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand, expressed its view of the cause of the collision between the Tahiti and the Greycliffe two years aeo.

Mr. Justice liaise Rogers, giving his findings on the facts, as distinct ; f rom the law, said:—“The action of ! ‘h»» Tahiti created a danger zone. Xo harm would have resulted had the Greycliffe not turned; but she did turn, and the pilot of the Tahiti failed m grasp the situation immediately. Then there was no escape.” “The Tahiti, aware of the presence of tlie Greycliffe on the starboard bow, made two slight alterations of her course to port, to keep the Grey- < liffe at an angle of safety. If the Greydlitte had maintained her course there would have been no collision, rile Greycliffe changed her course without any observation of the master as to whether his altered course would bring him across the course of any other vessel.” The court found that the Tahiti at all relevant times was in the charge of a pilot, in accordance with statutory requirements, and her owners had no choice as to the pilot employed. The

pilot must have known that he was exceeding the regulation speed, but he had a clear view of ilie Greycliffe, and assumed that, the Greycliffe would pursue a parallel course, and not change it without warning. The captain of the ferry acted on the assumption that there was no vessel in his immediate proximity astern, and made a change of course greater than was necessary to take him to his destination, and greater than the overtaking vessel might reasonably expect, thus turning the potential danger created by the Tahiti into p.ctual clanger. No satisfactory explanation had been given to the court as to why the Greycliffe changed her course as she did. The Judge said that on the evidence he must reject the theory of interaction, therefore he could not find that tlie admitted change of course was involuntary. Argument on the question of law has been postponed till after the Supreme Court sitting, at which Mr. Justice Halse Rogers will preside.