We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close

WOODS v. DUNCAN AND OTHERS. DUNCAN AND ANOTHER v. HAMBROOK AND OTHERS DUNCAN AND ANOTHER v. CAMMELL LAIRD & CO., LTD. (CONSOLIDATED APPEALS.)

Lloyd's Law Reports

WOODS v. DUNCAN AND OTHERS. DUNCAN AND ANOTHER v. HAMBROOK AND OTHERS DUNCAN AND ANOTHER v. CAMMELL LAIRD & CO., LTD. (CONSOLIDATED APPEALS.)

(1945) 79 Ll.L.Rep. 211

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Before Viscount Simon, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Macmillan, Lord Porter and Lord Simonds.

Negligence - Shipbuilders - King's ship - Trials-Sinking of submarine Thetis with crew during diving trials in Liverpool Bay -Civilian and naval personnel on board- Failure of rescue operations-Submarine salved later-Consolidated claims by personal representatives-Thetis, built by C. L., not yet accepted by Admiralty- "All trials, including completion trials, and gun trials, and the navigation of the vessel and the working of the machinery during passage to and from the place of trial, and on all other occasions required by the specification and by these conditions, shall be conducted at the risk and at the expense of the contractors"-W. D. B. under sub-contract with C. L. to carry out certain painting work to vessel (including torpedo tubes) such work "to be to the entire satisfaction and approval of the Admiralty overseer"-Cause of loss-Failure of submarine to submerge according to plan-Rear door of No. 5 torpedo tube opened by W. (officer in charge of tube compartment) and H. (experienced naval rating) in belief that tube was empty-Submarine flooded by sea water through No. 5 tube (bow cap being open to sea)-Precautions taken by W. and H. before opening rear door- Negative results obtained from test cock- Evidence that hole in test cock was ineffective because it was completely blocked by paint negligently applied by workman of W. D. B.-Painting work passed by employee of C. L. as fit for inspection by Admiralty overseer-No inspection by Admiralty overseer-Allegations of negligence against W. and H.; against W. D. B.; against C. L.; and against B. (naval officer in charge of submarine) -Whether W. and H. took all reasonable steps to ascertain real condition of affairs inside No. 5 tube-Provision of rimer to clear possible obstruction in hole in test cock-Rimer not used by W. or H.-Liability of W. D. B.-Duty towards third persons in carrying out painting work-Rear door normally harmless but rendered dangerous by negligent work- "Proximity"-Duty of C. L. towards persons on board-Invitors-Vessel in their control and occupation up to date of commencement of trials-Opportunity to detect and remedy defect.

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click login button.

Login