A-161-74
The Ship Mar Tirenno, its owners and all those
having an interest in the said ship (Appellant)
v.
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde
D.J.—Quebec City, January 15, 1976.
Maritime law—Damage to underwater telephone cables by
anchor of ship—Wharf extremely exposed to ice movement—
Ship breaking away, creating dangerous situation—Negligence
on part of captain—Inevitable accident plea rejected—No
contributory negligence—Action sustained—Dismissed on
appeal—Trial Judge correct in deciding damage caused by
appellant's error and that respondent had not accepted such
risk—Within jurisdiction to order interest at 6%—Interest
Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-18, ss. 11, 13.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
R. Gaudreau for appellant.
M. Racicot and P. Hurtubise for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Langlois, Drouin & Laflamme, Quebec City,
for appellant.
Houle, Hurtubise & April, Montreal, for
respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: There is no need for us to hear you,
Messrs. Racicot and Hurtubise.
In our opinion the Trial Judge' did not err in
deciding, first, that the damage was caused
through the fault of appellant, and second, that it
could not be said that respondent had in the case
at bar accepted the risk of such damage.
It is also our opinion that in ordering appellant
to pay interest at the rate of six per cent on the
amount of the damages until the day of the judg
ment, the Trial Judge exercised the discretion
possessed by the Federal Court as part of its
maritime law jurisdiction.
The appeal will accordingly be dismissed with
costs.
[ 1974] 1 F.C. 294.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.