Supreme Court of Canada
Connolly v. Grenier / Connolly v. Martel, (1909) 42 S.C.R. 242
Date: 1909-03-08
Connolly v. Grenier. Connolly v. Martel.
1909: March 8.
Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Davies, Idington, Duff and Anglin JJ.
Ships and shipping—Perils of the sea—Unseaworthy ship—Evidence —Warranty—Inspection of shipping—Certificate of seaworthiness—Construction of statute—R.S.C. 1906, c. 133, s. 342—Drowning of sailors—Negligence of master—Liability of owner.
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court, sitting in review at Montreal, affirming the judgments of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, which maintained the actions with costs.
The actions were brought against the owner of the tug "Mersey" which was wrecked near Pointe Outarde, on the Lower St. Lawrence, in August, 1903, to recover damages in consequence of the drowning of two of her crew. At the formal investigation into the causes of the foundering of the ship, the wreck commissioner, assisted by two nautical assessors, reported that the ship was seaworthy when she left Quebec on her last voyage; that her life-boat and appliances were sufficient to have saved all lives on board had the master made proper use of them, and that the evidence did not explain the cause of the casualty by which these sailors' lives were lost. It was also found that the master and mate had been guilty of cowardice and desertion of the ship and their certificates were cancelled. The actions were first brought in the District of Quebec, but the court declared itself incompetent and referred the case to the Superior Court for the
[Page 243]
District of Montreal. In the latter court the defendant (appellant), pleaded prescription, a year having elapsed before the actions came before a court of competent jurisdiction, that deceased were not passengers, but were engaged as part of the ship's crew, that the ship was seaworthy and that the disaster was due to the perils of the sea. At the trials and by the judgments appealed from the plea of prescription was dismissed and judgments were entered in favour of the plaintiffs, respectively. The defendant raised the same questions on the present appeals.
After hearing counsel on behalf of the appellant and without calling upon counsel for the respondents for any argument, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals with costs.
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Perron K.C. for the appellant.
Beulac for the respondents.
Email this Content