The insured vessel, Trident, went to Dunkirk and engaged a French pilot whose pilot boat developed a fault in its steering gear which caused her to collide with Trident without Trident being in any way to blame. French law had a provision that damage sustained by the pilot boat in the course of pilotage operations was chargeable to the ship, unless the pilot had been guilty of gross negligence (‘faute lourde’). The shipowner paid for the pilot boat’s damages and then claimed three-quarters of that sum from underwriters under the collision liability clause.
Held: The underwriters were not liable.
Goddard J said: ‘It seems to me that, certainly so far as it is a matter of coming to a decision upon the evidence of the French lawyers, there is no conception of delict or tort in the cause of action which is given by the French Decree to the pilot boat. It seems to me that the probable theory which underlies the legislation, though it does not matter, when it is a matter of policy of law, what theory underlies the legislation, is that the pilot boat is rendering a service for the benefit of the ship which requires pilotage and, therefore, any damage which the pilot boat may receive in the course of rendering that service is to be regarded as an expense of the pilotage and is to be paid by the ship in just the same way as she would have to pay the pilotage dues, or whatever is the correct expression used in France, as remuneration for the service which the pilot renders.’
Judges:
Goddard J
Citations:
(1938) 43 Com Cas 284
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Hall Brothers Steamship Company Limited v Young CA 1939
The shipowners appealed a decision that the underwriters were not liable under collision liability clause. Their ship had collided with another at Dunkirk when the steering gear failed. Under french law the pilot was not liable since he had not been . .
Cited – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable CA 12-Feb-2009
The police had responded to a riot at Yarlswood detention centre. They had insurance to cover their liability under the 1886 Act, but the re-insurers said that the insurance did not cover the event, saying that the liability was for statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Damages
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.282641