Wreck Report for 'Italia' and 'Ino', 1887

(No. 3266.)

"ITALIA" (S.S.) AND "INO."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 26th of May 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains PARFITT, DYER, R.N., and BAKER, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the collision which occurred in the River Thames on the 23rd of April last between the steamship "ITALIA," of Middlesbrough, and the lighter "INO," resulting in the loss of one life.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the said collision was due to the "Italia" not having kept out of the way of the barge "Ino," as it was her duty to do, owing either to the want of a good and proper look-out, or to the improper speed at which the vessel was going, but that all proper measures were taken to avoid the barge after she was seen, as well as to save the life of the man who was in charge of her. The Court will not deal with the certificate of the master of the "Italia," and the mate does not hold any certificate.

Dated the 26th day of May 1887.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

 

 

 

RICHD. C. DYER,

Assessors.

 

 

C. H. J. BAKER,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 26th of May instant, when Mr. Radcliffe appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Beaufort for the owners, and Mr. Farnfield for the relatives of George Morrell, the lighterman in charge of the "Ino," and Mr. Lennard for the owners, master, and officers of the "Italia." Eleven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Radcliffe handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Beaufort, Mr. Farnfield, and Mr. Lennard then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Radcliffe having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked.

The facts of the case, so far as they relate to the barge "Ino," are extremely short and simple. She was a dumb barge of about 50 tons register, belonging to Messrs. Paice and Gray, of London, lightermen and barge builders. She left the Victoria Docks at about 11 p.m. of the 22nd of April with a cargo of jute, and in charge of a man named George Morrell, bound to Fennings Wharf. She proceeded up the river with a strong flood tide and with the wind blowing a fresh breeze from the S.W.; and about 1 a.m., when a little above the lower entrance to the Surrey Commercial Docks, a steam vessel called the "Italia" ran into her, and damaged her so seriously, that it was found necessary to put her ashore to prevent her sinking in deep water. The man who was in charge of her was either knocked overboard at the time of the collision, or jumped into the river shortly afterwards, and was drowned.

The case of the "Italia" is as follows:—She is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of Middlesbrough, of 410 tons gross and 244 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 51 horse power. She was built at Greenock in the year 1869, and at the time of the casualty was the property of Mr. J. Milner, Lennard, and others, a Mr. Thomas Simmonds being the manager. She left the Surrey Commercial Docks by the upper entrance at about 12.20 a.m. of the 23rd of April last in ballast, with a crew of 12 hands, and in charge of a duly licensed river pilot, bound to Middlesbrough; and proceeded down the river with her engines, we are told, going slow, and against a strong flood tide. And at about 1 a.m. she was approaching the lower entrance of the Surrey Commercial Docks, when a barge, which proved to be the "Ino," was suddenly observed nearly ahead, but a little on the starboard bow, and at a distance of not more than 40 to 50 yards off. Orders were at once given to hard-a-starboard the helm, and to stop and reverse the engines full speed, which was done; but before either the helm or the engines had had time to act, the two vessels came together, the "Italia" striking the "Ino" on the starboard bow some six or eight feet from the stem. A rope and a life buoy were thrown from the steamer to the man, who was on board the barge, but he failed to get hold of either; and the barge, which was sinking, was then towed ashore and put on the mud.

These then being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether the lighterman in charge of the 'Ino' ex- " hibited a light of any description when the steamer " was approaching, and if not, whether he was justified " in neglecting to do so?" It seems to be admitted that no light was at any time shewn from the "Ino," and the question which we have to consider is whether she was justified under the circumstances in neglecting to shew a light to the approaching steamer. The Rules for the Navigation of the River Thames are contained in certain bye-laws, which have been passed from time to time; and if I rightly understand them the following would seem to be the regulations which relate to the exhibition of lights by dumb barges. By the 2nd article of the bye-laws, passed on the 17th day of March 1875 (p. 37), a dumb barge, "when under weigh and not in " tow, shall between sunset and sunrise, when below " or to the eastward" of Charlton Pier "have a white " light always ready, and exhibit the same on the " approach of any vessel." By the 3rd article of the same bye-laws (p. 37), she shall, when being towed, if she is the sternmost or last of a line of barges, exhibit a white light from the stern. Again by the 7th article of the bye-laws of the 18th of March 1880 (p. 59), she shall, when at anchor in the river, "carry where " it can be seen" a white light. And by the 8th article of the same bye-laws (p. 59), she shall, when below Barking Creek, and when being overtaken by another vessel, "shew from her stern to such " last-mentioned vessel a white light or a flare up " light." These are, so far as appears, the only cases in which a dumb barge is required to carry or exhibit a light, namely, when she is below Charlton Pier, when she is in tow and the last in a line of barges, when she is at anchor, and when she is below Barking Creek, and is being overtaken by another vessel. But the "Ino" was not in any of these conditions; she was not below Charlton Pier, she was not in tow, she was not at anchor, and was not being overtaken by another vessel; she was therefore not bound to exhibit a light; nay more, she was expressly prohibited from doing so, for the 4th article of the bye-laws of the 18th of March 1880 (p. 57), says that the lights mentioned in the rules and no others shall be carried. But Mr. Lennard has called our attention to the 2nd article of the bye-laws of the 18th March 1880 (p. 57), where it is said that nothing in the rules "shall exone- " rate any vessel, or the owner, or master, or crew " thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry " lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper " look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which " may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, " or by the special circumstances of the case." We are disposed, however, to think that the general terms of this article will not override the more specific provisions of the other articles, which prescribe when barges may and when they may not carry lights. Why it is that a barge, when above Charlton Pier, and therefore in the most crowded part of the river, and running up as this barge was with a strong flood tide, should be precluded from showing a light to an approaching vessel, the Court is not able to say, but such would seem to be the law. The case is the more remarkable, for there can be little doubt that if the "Ino" had shewn a light the collision would not have occurred.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the 'Italia' was proceeding down the river at a " moderate speed; whether a good and proper look-out " was kept on board her, and whether, upon approach- " ing the 'Ino' so as to involve risk of collision, her " speed was slackened and her engines promptly " stopped and reversed?" And with it I will take the third question, which is, "Whether every possible effort was made by those in charge of the 'Italia' to avoid the collision?" And first as to the speed at which the vessel was going. According to the master and chief officer of the "Italia," she was going at the rate of between 3 and 4 knots through the water; and the chief engineer stated that the engines were going slow, making only from 30 to 35 revolutions a minute, full speed being 70 to 75 revolutions. We have, however, some difficulty in reconciling this evidence with that of the pilot, who told us that they left the dock at 20 minutes after 12, and had got her straightened down the river by about half past 12; and that the collision occurred at 1 a.m. near the lower entrance to the docks. Now, the distance from the upper to the lower entrance is one mile and three-quarters, and as the tides were nearly at the springs, and owing to the strong breeze which was blowing up Limehouse Reach, were running, according to the pilot, at about 3 knots; that would give her a speed of about 3 miles in half an hour, or 6 knots an hour through the water. On this point, too, the pilot was confirmed by two independent and thoroughly competent witnesses, namely, by William Andrews, a lighterman in charge of the barge "Venus," which was some 300 yards ahead of the "Ino," and which was nearly run down by the "Italia," and by Thomas Garland, an Inspector in the Thames Police, who was in his boat near the place of the collision. Both these witnesses say that in their opinion the "Italia" was going at the rate of about 6 knots through the water, and, according to Andrews, she was travelling too fast, having regard to the extreme darkness of the night. And that the night was very dark seems to admit of no doubt, one of the witnesses describing it as a wonderfully dark night.

This being so, and it being the duty of the "Italia" to keep out of the way, let us see what measures were taken on board that vessel to avoid running down any barges which they might meet coming up the river with the flood tide, and which they must have known would be precluded by the bye-laws from carrying or exhibiting any light. We are told that the master and pilot were on the bridge, the master being on the port side, the pilot on the starboard side; but owing to the vessel drawing 12 feet 8 inches aft and 7 feet 6 forward, and being thus over 5 feet by the stern, they could not, we were told, see any object on the water, such as this barge, unless it was well on either bow, and as a fact the "Ino" was not seen by either of them until after the collision. The look-out, we are told, consisted of the chief mate and an A.B. named Williams, who were stationed on the top gallant forecastle forward. Williams, however, instead of looking out, was engaged coiling down ropes, but shortly before the collision he left the top gallant forecastle and went on to the main deck, where he was when the vessel was first reported. As to the chief officer he told us that when he first saw the "Ino" she was nearly ahead, or a little on the starboard bow, and not more than 40 or 50 yards off, which was, he said, the greatest distance at which she could be seen, and that he immediately reported her; and both the master and pilot say that as soon as she was reported, orders were at once given to starboard the helm and to stop and reverse the engines, but that the vessels were then so close to one another that the collision occurred before either the helm or the engines had had time to act. That the helm was hard-a-starboarded and the engines stopped and reverse immediately on the "Ino" being seen and reported, and that every effort was then made to go clear of her, we have no doubt; and the first question which we have to consider is, whether the "Ino" was seen as soon as she ought to have been seen. Now the witnesses from the "Italia" say that, in their opinion, she was seen as soon as it was possible to see her, which they say was at a distance of 40 to 50 yards, and that then it was impossible to do anything to avoid running into her. But if so another question arises, Whether the "Italia" had any right to be going at such a speed that it was impossible for her to go clear of any dumb barge which she might meet? Apart from the 21st article of the bye-laws of the 18th of March 1880 by which the "Italia," being a steam vessel, would be bound to keep out of the way of the "Ino," there is the 3rd article of the same bye-laws, which provides that "every steam vessel navigating the river shall " be navigated with care and caution, and at a speed " and in a manner which shall not endanger the safety " of other vessels, or cause damage thereto;" and then it goes on as follows, "if the safety of any vessel is " endangered, or damage is caused thereto by a pass- " ing steam vessel, the onus shall lie upon the owner " of such steam vessel to shew that she was navigated " with care and caution, at such a speed, and in such " manner as directed by this rule." But a speed which would make it impossible for the steamer to clear the barge, even if the best possible means were adopted, and at the earliest possible period after the barge could be seen, can hardly be said to be a speed which would not endanger the safety of other vessels. It appears to us that the "Italia" is in this difficulty—either she might and therefore ought to have seen the "Ino" sooner than she did, and therefore there could not have been a good and proper look-out on board; or she could not have seen the "Ino" until it was impossible, with the speed at which she was going, to avoid running her down, and in that case she would have no right to be going at that speed. If it be said that she was obliged to go at that speed to keep herself under command, the obvious answer is that, if the night was so exceptionally dark that it was impossible to see a barge in time to avoid running over her, the "Italia" had no right to have left the docks that night; she should have waited until it was sufficiently light to enable her to go clear of any other vessels which she might meet. The onus is upon the "Italia" to shew that she was navigating the river with care and caution, and at such a speed as not to endanger the safety of other vessels, and that onus she has not discharged.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " she was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" In our opinion she was not. The collision was, in our opinion, due either to the want of a good and proper look-out, or to the speed at which she was going, and possibly to both.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "What was " the cause of the loss of life, and whether every pos- " sible effort was made by those on board the 'Italia' " to render assistance?" it is difficult to say whether this poor man, who lost his life, was knocked overboard, or whether he jumped into the water; but it is not pretended that every possible effort was not made by the people on board the "Italia" to save his life.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master and chief officer of the 'Italia,' or either " of them, is in default, and whether blame attaches to " the pilot?" And it is added that "the Board of Trade " are of opinion that the certificate of the master of the " 'Italia' should be dealt with." it appears to us that the blame for this collision rests either with the chief officer of the "Italia" for not having kept a good and proper look-out, or with the pilot for having gone at too great a rate of speed, or possibly with both. How far the master is responsible for having allowed the vessel to proceed at such a speed, having regard to the extreme darkness of the night, is a question which we need not decide, as it regards merely the owner's liability for the damages; but there is nothing to justify us in saying that the collision was brought about by any wrongful act and default on the part of the master, and we shall therefore not deal with his certificate. The mate holds no certificate, and the Court has no jurisdiction over the pilot.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

 

 

 

RICHD. C. DYER,

Assessors.

 

 

C. H. J. BAKER,

 

50022—177. 180.—6/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.