Canada v. Ship Delta Pride et al., (2003) 226 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

• Judge: Layden-Stevenson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 13, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 226 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

Can. v. Ship Delta Pride (2003), 226 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.019

Action In Rem against the Vessel "Delta Pride" and In Personam

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (plaintiff) v. The Ship "Delta Pride", Her Owners, Servants and Agents and all Others interested in the Ship "Delta Pride", Tristar Shipping Lines Ltd. (defendants)

(T-86-96; 2003 FCT 11)

Indexed As: Canada v. Ship Delta Pride et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Layden-Stevenson, J.

January 13, 2003.

Summary:

The defendant ship left its berth in confined waters with the assistance of tugs. The Crown alleged that its floating breakwater was damaged by being struck by the ship or one of the tugs and/or the wash from those vessels. The Crown brought a negligence action for damages for the repair costs.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the action. The ship was liable in negligence for the damage to the breakwater caused by the ship's wash and the tug striking it. However, the "crumbling skull" rule applied to limit damages for repair costs to the deteriorating breakwater, which "but for" the negligence needed repairs in four years time.

Damages - Topic 593

Limits of compensatory damages - Predisposition to damage (thin skull or crumbling skull rule) - Damage to goods - A ship left its berth in confined waters with the assistance of tugs - The Crown alleged that its floating breakwater was damaged by being struck by the ship, or one of the tugs, or the wash from those vessels - The Crown brought a negligence action for damages for the repair costs - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the action - The tug, not the ship, contacted the breakwater and its chains - The general rule that the ship controlled the tug was not rebutted - The ship was accordingly liable in negligence for the tug striking the breakwater - Although the contact was only a minor cause of the damage compared with the breakwater's deteriorating chains as a result of a "replace when broken" philosophy respecting repairs, the contact did materially contribute to the damage outside the de minimus range (i.e., "but for" the contact repairs were not needed for four more years) - In assessing damages, the court limited damages related to the $81,746.76 repair costs to the interest on that sum over the four year period (i.e. compensating Crown for cost of incurring the expense four years early).

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 4641

Contracts of towage - Duty of tug - General - [See Damages - Topic 593 ].

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 5323

Collisions and groundings - Negligence - Towing operations - [See Damages - Topic 593 ].

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 5346

Collisions and groundings - Negligence - Duty of ships - Towing operations - [See Damages - Topic 593 ].

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 5741

Collisions and groundings - Damages - General - [See Damages - Topic 593 ].

Torts - Topic 54

Negligence - Causation - "But for" test - [See Damages - Topic 593 ].

Torts - Topic 61

Negligence - Causation - Causal connection - [See Damages - Topic 593 ].

Cases Noticed:

Ultramar Canada Inc. et al. v. Ship Czantoria et al. (1994), 84 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

A/S Ornen v. Ship Duteous et al., [1987] 1 F.C. 270; 4 F.T.R. 122 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Bell Telephone Co. v. Ship Mar-Tirenno, [1974] 1 F.C. 294 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Sinquasi, Re (1885), 5 P.D. 241, refd to. [para. 63].

Hamilton Marine & Engineering Ltd. et al. v. CSL Group Inc. et al. (1995), 95 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 66].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 76].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 87].

Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd. v. St. Lawrence Cement Inc. (1992), 89 D.L.R.(4th) 722 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Grime, Robert, Shipping Law (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 229, 230 [para. 65].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1983), vol 43, para. 874 [para. 64].

Counsel:

Joseph Spears, for the plaintiff;

H. Peter Swanson, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Spears & Co., for the plaintiff;

Bernard & Partners, for the defendant.

This action was heard on November 12-15, 2002, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Layden-Stevenson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 13, 2003.