Wreck report for 'Lass O'Doune', 1947

Crown Copyright Reserved

No. S.405

s.t. "LASS O'DOUNE"

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894

REPORT OF COURT

In the matter of a Formal Investigation held at The Temperance Institute, Carlton Crescent, Southampton, on the 18th and 19th September, 1947, before R. F. Hayward, Esq., K.C., assisted b Captain J. P. Thomson and Messrs. J. Shand and J. Young, into the circumstances attending the loss of the steam trawler "Lass O'Doune" off Shoreham, on the 14th October, 1946.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty finds, for the reasons stated in the Anne hereto, that the sinking and total loss of the "Lass O'Doune" was caused by reason of her putting to sea with unlocated leaks in her hull, with her pumping arrangements in defective condition, and with a insufficient crew, in that of the four men on board none had sufficient knowledge of, and experience in, the use and maintenance of her pumping equipment. The Court orders that her registered owner, Gordon David Claridge, do pay to the Solicitor to the Ministry of Transport £200 (Two hundred pounds) towards the cost of the Inquiry, and that her skipper, Reginald Valentine Rose, do pay to the Solicitor to the Ministry of Transport £250 (Two hundred and fifty pound towards the cost of the Inquiry.

Dated this 8th day of October, 1947.

R. F. HAYWARD, Judge.

We concur in the above Report.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The Court's Answers to the Questions submitted by the Ministry of Transport are as follows:-

Q. 1. (a) By whom was the "Lass O'Dounc" owned at the time of her loss?

A. Mr. Gordon David Claridge, of White Cottage, Water End, Wheathampstead, Herts.

Q. (b) How long had she been so owned?

A. Since February, 1946.

Q. 2. (a) By whom was the "Lass O'Doune" built?

A. Messrs. Hall, Russell & Co., Ltd., Aberdeen.

Q. (b) When was the "Lass O'Doune" built?

A. 1910.

Q. 3. (a) From whom did the last owner of the "Lass O'Doune" purchase the vessel?

A. Messrs. Easton Brothers, Swansea.

Q. (b) What was the purchase price?

A. £3,000.

Q. 4. With what compasses was the "Lass O'Doune" fitted?

A. One overhead magnetic compass and a spare compass kept in store.

Q. 5. With what wireless transmitter was the "Lass O'Doune" fitted?

A. A Marconi telephone.

Q. 6. On what voyage was the "Lass O'Doune" lost?

A. On passage from Newlyn to Lowestoft.

Q. 7. When the "Lass O'Doune" sailed on the last voyage, was she seaworthy and properly equipped to meet the perils of the voyage then to be undertaken?

A. No.

Q. 8. What was the number of the crew all told at the commencement of the last voyage?

A. Six all told.

Q. 9. On what date did the "Lass O'Doune" commence her last voyage?

A. 4th October, 1946.

Q. 10. (a) On the first day of the voyage did the "Lass O'Doune" make water and have trouble with her pumps?

A. Yes.

Q. (b) Was the source of the ingress of water discovered?

A. No.

Q. 11. (a) On the second day of the voyage was water found in the stokehold?

A. Yes.

Q. (b) Was trouble encountered on this occasion with pumps?

A. Yes.

Q. (c) Did the "Lass O'Doune" make for Portland because of her condition. If so, how was the water in the "Lass O'Doune" pumped out at Portland?

A. Yes, by National Fire Service pumps.

Q. 12. (a) Did the "Lass O'Doune" leave Portland the next day and find it necessary to return to Weymouth?

A. Yes.

Q. (b) At Weymouth was the "Lass O'Doune" again pumped out by shore labour?

A. Yes.

Q. (c) By whom was the "Lass O'Doune" inspected at Weymouth?

A. No-one. Two employees of Messrs. Cousens gave a little gratuitous assistance in the engine-room.

Q. (d) Was the inspection adequate and proper?

A. No.

Q. (e) Did three members of the crew refuse to sail, and leave the ship at Weymouth?

A. Two refused, and the cook was dismissed or also refused.

Q. (f) Was such refusal justified?

A. Yes.

Q. 13. (a) Did the "Lass O'Doune" leave Weymouth on the 8th October, 1946, and again put back into Portland?

A. Yes, either on the 8th or 9th October, or both.

Q. (b) Was this solely on account of bad weather?

A Yes

Q. 14. (a) Did the "Lass O'Doune" again sail from Weymouth in improved weather but have to return almost immediately because her hull was again. making water?

A. Yes.

Q. (b) Who attended the "Lass O'Doune" on that occasion? Was a proper examination made?

A. Mr. James Hamer was instructed by Lloyd's Agent at Weymouth to attend the "Lass O'Doune" in order to survey her. He did attend on the 9th October, but was informed by the skipper that the vessel was not making any water and his services were not required, and he made no proper examination.

Q. 15. (a) Did the "Lass O'Doune" finally leave Weymouth on the 13th October, 1946, with skipper, second hand, boatswain and fireman?

A. She left on that date manned by her skipper, an experienced second hand, and two men with little trawler experience.

Q. (b) If so, was the "Lass O'Doune" under-manned in view of the trouble experienced in the past few days?

A. Yes, she carried no competent engineer, and her skipper and second hand had insufficient knowledge of the pumping arrangements.

Q. 16. Was it wrong of the skipper to proceed with the voyage in view of the repeated serious leaks and failure of pumps, together with the refusal of four members of the original crew to sail?

A. Yes.

Q. 17. (a) Did the "Lass O'Doune" put into Southampton at about 5 p.m. on the 13th October, 1946?

A. Yes.

Q. (b) If so, for what purpose?

A. It was intended to sail by daylight only.

Q. 18. In view of the facilities at the port of Southampton, was it the duty of the skipper to have asked the owner for a full examination in dry dock?

A. Yes, and earlier at Weymouth.

Q. 19. Did the "Lass O'Doune" proceed from Southampton at daybreak on the 14th October, 1946?

A. Yes.

Q. 20. Was the "Lass O'Doune" again filling with water and her pumps failing before mid-day on the 14th October, 1946?

A. Yes.

Q. 21 (a) Did the "Lass O'Doune" exhibit a signal of distress at about 2 p.m., 14th October, 1946?

A. Yes.

Q. (b) How did she make this distress signal?

A. By flag and shape.

Q. (c) Why did she not use her wireless transmitter?

A. She attempted to do so, but the batteries were run down.

Q. 22. Was the vessel abandoned at about 5 p.m. on the 14th October, 1946?

A. Yes.

Q. 23. Did the crew of four row to safety at Shoreham in the small boat?

A. Yes.

Q. 24. What was the cause of the loss of the "Lass O'Doune"?

A. Foundering through underwater leakage in her shell, defective pumps, and insufficient knowledge by those on board her of the pumping system.

Q. 25. At the time of her loss did the "Lass O'Doune" carry a competent engineer?

A. No.

Q. 26. Was the loss of the "Lass O'Doune" caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of the owner, Gordon David Claridge?

A. Yes, having regard to what he knew or should have known about the condition of the trawler and the events prior to 11th October, and the fact that he had had a communication from his insurance brokers stating that it was essential for him to obtain a certificate of seaworthiness before the vessel proceeded any further, he should not have relied solely upon a mere telephone conversation with his skipper.

Q. 27. Was the loss of the "Lass O'Doune" caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of the skipper, Reginald Valentine Rose?

A. Yes, with the knowledge at his disposal he was not justified in sailing from Weymouth in the condition in which his vessel then was and with the then crew on board.

Q. 28. (a) Was the loss of the "Lass O'Doune" caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of any other person?

A. No.

Q. (b) If so, whom?

A. See Questions and Answers Nos. 26 and 27.

Annex to the Report

The "Lass O'Doune" (hereinafter called the trawler) was a single screw steel fishing vessel of 91.24 tons gross and 37.71 tons register, built at Aberdeen, in 1910, by Messrs. Hall, Russell & Co., Ltd., and engined by them with a compound engine and multitubular boiler, and fitted with four pumps, a donkey pump, a main engine ram pump, a bilge ejector, and a bilge injection valve. In February, 1946, she was bought from her former owners by Mr. G. H. Claridge, of White Cottage, Water End, Wheathampstead, Herts, together with the trawler "Fertile" for £7,000 (the price asked being £9,000). The vendor would not sell the "Fertile" (which Mr. Claridge wanted) separately. The price set on the trawler in the bill of sale was £3,000, and she was insured for £4,000. On the 11th September, 1945, prior to purchase, Mr. Claridge had had the trawler surveyed in Newlyn, Cornwall. The survey report disclosed that she was badly in need of considerable structural repairs. Of her shell plates, seven were patched, one was doubled, eight others were set in, another was described as "fair," and one was described as "heavily wasted." Internally, the main stringer was heavily wasted, but a thorough examination could not be made by reason of sheathing. Brasses for the H.P. engine and link motion needed renewing, the boiler "seems fair," and "bunker plates poor and holed in many places." In evidence, Mr. Claridge asserted that the points raised in the survey report which should be attended to he had taken up with the vendors, who assured him that all these points had been attended to during the six months they had continued to run the ship.

There was, however, evidence that some three months after the purchase the new owner spent some £100 on bunker repairs, and in all about £700 on her before the time of the casualty. The vendors produced to the Ministry accounts for repair to the trawler whilst in their ownership, and stated that a lot of repair work was done by themselves of which no record was kept. They did, however, produce certain repair bills, but the only one incurred during the six months preceding the sale was for £10 13s. 4d. for scaling the boiler in October, 1945. Attention was drawn by the Court to the serious condition of the vessel as disclosed by the survey report, and it offered to adjourn the hearing to enable the owner to adduce evidence that major repairs had, in fact, been executed. The offer was not accepted, and no such evidence was forthcoming, and the only structural repair of any amount proved to the Court was some unspecified repair to the bunkers said to have cost about £100.

The trawler, part laden with fishing gear stowed in the fish hold and with three spare propellers on deck, sailed from Newlyn on 4th October, 1946, manned by an experienced skipper-R. V. Rose-and five other hands, including an experienced chief engineer and a second engineer. During the evening in a fresh quarterly wind water appeared over the stokehold plates, and the pumps that were used became choked. The main engines were stopped, the pumps were cleared, and the water pumped out, and in about four hours the voyage was continued. Again, when nearing Portland in moderate weather, the pumps choked, and on arrival at Portland the water was over the cranks and in the bunkers. It was pumped out by a trailer pump from the shore. The bilges having been cleaned and the pumps cleared, the trawler resumed her voyage on the 6th October, but within a few hours returned and put into Weymouth with water over the stokehold plates, and she was again pumped out by shore appliances. The skipper arranged to continue the voyage in company with another trawler, the "Gilda," bound to Lowestoft and belonging to the same owner, but three of the trawler's crew, including the second engineer and the cook, left her, and the arrangement was not carried out. Throughout, the skipper remained in ignorance of the cause of. the leakage. He left port again on the 8th and/or 9th October, but had to return quickly on account of the weather. He sailed again on the 10th October, with a crew of three all told, himself, the chief engineer, and the second hand, but water was again reported in the engine room and the pumps not working, and the trawler turned back. During the return to Portland the pumps were got working again. The chief engineer then left the ship.

Meanwhile the trawler's adventures apparently became known to the outside world, and the owner's insurance brokers in Swansea on the 8th October procured the Salvage Association in London to arrange for Lloyd's agent at Weymouth to investigate the position, and the Salvage Association wired to him to "arrange survey behalf underwriters telegraph position affairs extent damage source and cause leakage course proposed repairs your recommendation stop. See vessel seaworthy before proceeding." Mr. Boyle, Lloyd's agent at Weymouth, accordingly instructed Mr. J. Hamer, a shipwright employed by the Great Western Railway Company, to survey the trawler to find out the cause of the leakage. Mr. Hamer visited her, and briefly his version of the visit was that the skipper stated that he was also part owner, had not asked for a survey, and did not want a survey. Also he said "something about a cock of a bye-pass had been left open and which had been shut now. As you can see for yourself she is not making any water now." Mr. Hamer accordingly departed to make his report to Lloyd's agent, but before seeing him Lloyd's agent himself visited the trawler. Mr. Boyle's version of what took place was that the skipper told him that he did not want a surveyor, had not asked for one, and that all that was the matter was that a cock had been left open, that small coal had got into the rose of the bilge pump, and that that had been cleared and the cock shut, and that his vessel was perfectly alright. Mr. Boyle specifically denied the assertion of the skipper that he told the skipper that it was alright for him to proceed.

The version of these conversations which was given by the skipper was that Hamer told him that he had been sent down by Lloyd's-came aboard to find the trouble out-to inspect the ship, and that after the skipper had told him the pumps were working and she was not making any water he did nothing to find out the cause of the trouble and went ashore without comment by the skipper, though the latter himself did not know how the water had got into the vessel, and Hamer did not survey her. As to Mr. Boyle, whom he regarded as the senior surveyor, the skipper stated that he said, "I have been instructed by Lloyd's to come and survey this ship: the ship is leaking somewhere-do you know where it is, skipper? "to which the skipper replied," No I don't, I wish I knew." The "senior surveyor" told him, "if the water is under control and your pumps are working, skipper, I don't see where there is anything to stop you from going to sea." The Court, having carefully considered the whole of the evidence, has no hesitation in rejecting that of Skipper Rose where it is in conflict with that of Hamer and Boyle.

On the 11th October, the skipper was on the telephone to Mr. Claridge and, inter alia, stated that he informed his owner that Lloyd's people had been down and they said he could proceed to sea, but never informed his owner what they had done or didn't do. The skipper said that nothing was said about a certificate of seaworthiness, and that Mr. Claridge said to him, "If Lloyd's have been down and passed everything Al, and you have got a crew, I don't see why you shouldn't proceed by easy stages to Lowestoft." There was other conversation about the crew replacements, but nothing about a seaworthy certificate. Briefly the evidence of Mr. Claridge as to telephone conversations with the skipper whilst at Weymouth was that the skipper reported on the 6th October, that he was in Weymouth making water and having it attended to, and on the 7th October that when he attempted to sail in company with the "Gilda," three of the crew refused to sail, that he could get sufficient replacements locally, that the trawler had been pumped out and was not making any water, and that he could not explain the trouble. Mr. Claridge stated that on the 11th October the skipper reported that he had an engineer who he put a lot of trust in, a very useful man, who had also gone home, and asked him to try to get a replacement. Mr. Claridge stated that he said to the skipper that a Lloyd's surveyor was being sent down to survey and that he could not go until Lloyd's surveyor was satisfied and agreed to the sailing, and that the reply was that the surveyors had already been down, had inspected the ship, and had said everything was alright to proceed. Mr. Claridge further stated that he told him to make his crew up, and, if the surveyors were satisfied, he could proceed by easy stages in daylight. In a letter of the 12th October to his brokers, Mr. Claridge stated that he had heard from his skipper "to the effect that Mr. Boyle had made an inspection but was unable to find anything seriously wrong." The impression given to the Court by the evidence is that the owner, knowing the poor condition of the trawler, was careful not to enquire too deeply into what had happened in the hope that she could complete her voyage without undue delay, and that he was content to leave to the skipper any investigation of her state and decision as to taking the risk of again putting to sea with serious and unlocated leakage and without initiating repairs which might well be both expensive and lengthy.

The skipper, who had had some experience in a trawler's engine room, being unable to find an engineer, and having a second hand with similar experience to himself, engaged two men who had had a little trawler experience, and the trawler sailed from Weymouth on the 13th October in fine weather and put into Southampton for the night. Continuing the voyage on the 14th October, in fine weather, the trawler again made water, and the pumps choked and ceased to function. At about 2 p.m. the engines were stopped to conserve steam. A flag and shape distress signal was hoisted. The wireless set was useless as the batteries were found to be discharged. The water level in the boiler had been allowed to drop and the fires were drawn. Water gained fast and when her deck was nearly awash her crew left the trawler at about 5 p.m. in the small boat and rowed ashore to Shoreham. The Court finds that the trawler foundered through unlocated leaks in her shell, defective pumps, and insufficient knowledge of the pumping system. The Court is of opinion that on sailing from Weymouth the trawler was under-manned even for a voyage by daylight stages, in that she carried no competent or other engineer. The Court finds that the loss of the trawler was mainly due to fault or default of the skipper:-

As to the owner the Court finds that on the 11th October, 1946, when in effect he left to his skipper the decision as to whether and when the voyage should be continued, the owner knew or ought to have known:-

The Court is satisfied that although the owner may have been misled to some extent by his skipper, he was in the circumstances knowingly or recklessly at fault in failing to take proper care to be satisfied that the trawler was made seaworthy before being permitted to continue the voyage, and that the loss of the trawler was contributed to by his fault or default in this regard.

The Court, after due consideration, recommends to the Ministry of Transport that provision should be made whereby no British sea-going trawler or drifter shall be permitted to proceed to sea unless there has been issued in respect of her and within a specified time, a certificate of seaworthiness made by a responsible and duly qualified authority after proper examination of hull, machinery, boilers and life-saving appliances.

(Issued by the Minister of Transport

in London, December, 1947)

LONDON: PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE

To be purchased directly from H.M. Stationery Office at the following addresses:

York House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 13a Castle Street, Edinburgh, 2;

39-41 King Street, Manchester, 2; 1 St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff;

Tower Lane, Bristol, 1; 80 Chichester Street, Belfast

OR THROUGH ANY BOOKSELLER

1947

Price 4d. net