Decision by Viscount Sankey | Date decided April 15, 1937 | |
 | ||
Full case name Captain W. F. Wake-Walker O.B.E. R.N. v Steamer Colin W. Limited and others Judges sitting Viscount SankeyLord BlanesburghLord MerrivaleLord AtkinLord MacmillanNautical Assessors:Captain MackayCaptain W.R. Chaplin Citation(s) Captain W. F. Wake-Walker O.B.E. R.N. v Steamer Colin W. Limited and others, UKPC 49,, 2 D.L.R. 753 (P.C.),, 58 Ll.L.Rep. 11 (15 April 1937), P.C. (on appeal from Canada) Prior action(s) Wake-Walker v. Steamer Colin W. Ltd.,, S.C.R. 624 Ruling court | ||
Wake-Walker v SS Colin W Ltd is a Canadian admiralty law case concerning the issue of inevitable accident. The case was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in an appeal affirming a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Contents
The Collision between HMS Dragon and the Maplebranch
On 13 August 1934, HMS Dragon under the command of Captain Frederic Wake-Walker was entering the Market (or Victoria) Basin in the harbour of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. After entering the Basin, it attempted to avoid colliding into the Saguenay Trader, but it subsequently collided with an oil bunkering steamer, the Maplebranch, which was securely moored at the time of the collision. The Maplebranch sank. The owners of the Maplebranch sued Wake-Walker for the damages to the Maplebranch and its cargo.
Exchequer Court
The admiralty action was heard by Mr. Justice Demers of the Exchequer Court of Canada (Quebec Admiralty District), assisted by two nautical assessors. The plaintiffs alleged that the collision was caused solely by the improper and negligent navigation and mismanagement of Dragon by Wake-Walker. In his defence, Wake-Walker pleaded inevitable accident, said to be caused by the maneuvering of the Saguenay Trader, which Wake-Walker was trying to avoid hitting. On 21 June 1935, Demers J. held that Wake-Walker was liable.
Supreme Court of Canada
On a 3-2 majority, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the finding of liability. In his opinion for the majority, Davis J. held that when a vessel under steam collides with a moored vessel, the commander of the vessel under steam is presumed liable for the collision, and has the onus of proving that he was not negligent. Wake-Walker had not done so. In summary, the majority stated:
Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Wake-Walker's appeal was dismissed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In the opinion he delivered, Viscount Sankey noted:
Therefore, he agreed with the courts below that Wake-Walker had not discharged the onus to prove that the accident had been inevitable.