[negligence – steamship, damage to, while being repaired by shipwright]

Williamson v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 17 March 1842

Source: The Hobart Town Courier, 25 March 1842[1]

            The aim of the present action was to receive the sum of £20 10s. for repairs done to the Derwent steamer.

            It appeared from the evidence, that the vessel had, in consequence of being run on a sand-bank, been placed in the hands of the plaintiff, a shipwright, to effect the necessary repairs, and he, for that purpose, caused her to be taken to a spot in Sandy Bay, near his building yard, the master and crew being still on board. Mr. Williamson gave directions for mooring her securely, but a strong wind having set in during the night, she drifted on a bank and moved some of her coppers. The defendant, proprietor of the steamer, contended, that the ship builder being vested with the responsibility during the time that the vessel lay under his hands, refused payment of an account to the amount above specified, which was tendered to him by Mr. Williamson.

            Mr. Macdowell, who advocated the cause for the plaintiff, called several nautical gentlemen to certify to the established custom between ship-owners and builders, with a view to elicit that, unless under special agreement, the former continued responsible for the safety of the vessels undergoing repairs, at least as far as it might be endangered by the fortuitous actions of wind and weather. Mr. Kelly was of opinion that such risk ought to be incurred by the owner, as long as, by the presence of the offices and crew, he still maintained possession. Mr. Macdonald modified this view of the question, by stating how far the duties of the ship-builder should extend, in seeing, before he leaves the vessel, that she has properly settled on her blocks, any neglect of which is visited on himself; but when he had taken proper care to ascertain that her whole weight reposes firmly, then any damage produced by unexpected weather must be met by the proprietor.

            The Solicitor-General, counsel for the defendant, endeavoured by cross-questioning the witnesses, to show that the injuries which the steamer had sustained in being thrown on the Sandy Bay bank, had arisen from either neglect or ignorance on the part of the plaintiff, who had had the sole management of the vessel, and that though the master and crew had remained on board, they had acted solely under his directions.

            His Honor, in presenting the jury with a summum of the case, expressed as his view of the matter at issue, that if a person give another an article of any sort, whether a vessel or a more trifling object, for the purpose of repairing, the latter, by undertaking to restore it to a perfect state, must tacitly hold himself answerable that it shall not be subject to still further deterioration.

            Verdict for the defendant.

Pedder C.J., 17 March 1842

Source: Hobart Town Advertiser, 22 March 1842

            Williamson v. Armstrong. – Messrs. McDowell and Rowlands appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Horne and Roberts for the defendants.

            This was an action to recover the sum of £20 10s. for repairs &c., done to the Derwent steam boa.

            It appeared that the steam-boat was taken to the plaintiff’s yard to be overhauled, and in consequence of being exposed to the weather, received some damage.  The question was whether the owner or the shipwright was liable for the damage.

            His Honor summed up the evidence stating that he took it in the light as if he placed an article of any kind into the hands of a person to repair, and if an accident occurred, either by commission or omission, the parties in whose hands it was placed he thought was answerable.  Verdict for defendant.

Notes