GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 845, 13 December 1929, Page 9

GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

LEGAL ARGUMENT BEGUN AT SYDNEY FERRY COMPANY’S CLAIM Reed. 9.15 a.m. SYDNEY, Today. Argument has begun, in the Admiralty Court, before Mr. Justice Halse Rogers, on the questions of law arising out of his Honour’s judgment concerning the Greycliffe disaster two years ago. Sydney Ferries, Ltd., owners of the Greycliffe, are claiming £30,000 damages from the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand, Ltd., owners of the Tahiti.. Mr. Manning, who is appearing for Sydney Ferries, Ltd., quoted authorities relating to the duties of following vessels, and argued that the master of the Greycliffe was entitled to assume that no vessel would overtake him, while if the Tahiti had given a warning blast, the Greycliffe could have turned to starboard. He emphasised that a warning from a following vessel was of outstanding importance. The master of the Greycliffe also was entitled to assume that the harbour regulations in relation to speed would be obeyed by other vessels. Dr. Brissendon, K.C., for the Union Steam Ship Company, said that on the findings, negligence was admitted with respect to the speed of the Tahiti, but the doing of a prohibited act was not negligence. The Admiralty Court’s finding on the facts of the Greycliffe disaster was given three weeks ago by Mr. Justice Haise Rogers, who said: “The action of the Tahiti created a danger zone. No harm would have resulted had the Greycliffe not turned: but she did turn, and the pilot of the Tahiti failed to grasp the situation immediately. Then there was no escape. "The Tahiti, aware of the presence of the Greycliffe on the starboard bow, made two slight alterations of her course to port, to keep the Greycliffe at an angle of safety. If the Greycliffe had maintained her course there would have been no collision. The Greycliffe changed her course without any observation by the master as to whether his altered course would briug him across the course of any other vessel.” The court found that the Tahiti at all relevant times was ill 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 the 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 actual danger. No satisfactory explantion 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 the admitted change of course was involuntary.