Scottish Court of Session Decisions

John Gordon, seaman, Aberdeen, who had been employed as cook on board the trawler “North Coast,” sued the owner, William Pyper, merchant, Aberdeen, for damages for personal injury incurred.

He alleged that he had been “asked to lend a hand at hauling the trawling gear, which he did. The gear consists of a large bag net, which is suspended from a long beam, at each end of which there is an iron chain, known as a bridle, by which the beam and trawl are towed through the sea. In order to bring the beam up to the level of the deck in hauling the gear, there is attached to a short chain fixed about six feet from the after head a wire rope known as the dandy bridle. This dandy bridle passes through a small davit on the quarter of the vessel, is carried across the deck to a snatch block, and thence forward along the deck to the drum of a steam winch, which is situated in front of the fore hatchway. In order to bring the dandy bridle to the steam winch when the trawl is down, it is necessary to connect it in the first place with another wire rope, known as a messenger. On hauling the gear on

Page: 179↓

the occasion in question the dandy bridle was attached to a messenger; the messenger was put round the drum of the steam winch, which was set in motion, and the pursuer was engaged pulling out the slack as it came off the drum of the winch. The coverings of the splicing of the dandy bridle and messenger were defective, a quantity of the spun yarn or tow used for covering the splicing being loose and hanging down. The dandy bridle was insufficiently attached to the messenger by means of clip hooks and an eye instead of by means of a shackle and screw and an eye. The result of the spun yarn being loose is that the wire rope is liable to get fixed in the yarn in going round the barrel; this causes the rope to slacken on the barrel of the winch, and if the tension is relieved where the eyes held by the clip hooks are they are liable to get disconnected. The weight of the beam trawl then pulls the dandy bridle rapidly back through the snatch block and davit into the sea, to the serious danger of the men who are attending to the heaving of the gear in the after part of the vessel. While the gear in question was in use on the ‘North Coast’ this repeatedly happened, and the day before the pursuer was hurt and another nearly lost his fingers through this happening. The pursuer, on the occasion in question, observing the loose spun yarn, and being apprehensive that it would get entangled with the wire rope, and so disconnect the dandy bridle and messenger and cause the beam and trawl-net to fall back into the sea to the danger of himself and of the men at the davit in the manner above set forth, put his left hand on the spun yarn and endeavoured to prevent it entangling, and doing so his hand was caught and crushed in the coils of rope…. The pursuer's injuries were sustained by him through the defender's failure to supply proper gear for the hauling of the beam trawl on board said trawler. The coverings of the splicing of said dandy bridle and messenger were defective, and the loose spun yarn, especially when associated with clip hooks, constituted a source of danger. The fastening of the dandy bridle and messenger together by means of an eye and clip hooks was also highly dangerous. Clip hooks are used and are suitable for the rigging of vessels, but it is not customary to use them, and it is not right to use them, where a weight depends on the rope, and where it is possible the tension on the rope may be momentarily relieved in the vicinity of the joining through an entanglement taking place or otherwise. The usual and proper fastening for a dandy bridle and messenger is a shackle and screw, which cannot get unfastened from the eye whether the rope be taut or slack. Had the dandy bridle and messenger been so connected on the occasion in question there would have been no danger of their getting unfastened and the beam trawl again falling into the sea, and the men attending to the gear of the vessel would have run no risk. Had they been so connected it would not have been necessary for the pursuer to have put his fingers on the spun yarn or on the drum of the winch, and he would have escaped the injuries he has received.”

Upon 10th November 1891 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Brown) allowed a proof.

The pursuer appealed for jury trial, and argued—The pursuer was entitled to proceed against the owner, because he had sent his ship to sea with defective appliances. The pursuer saw that these appliances were not in good order, and he endeavoured to act so that danger should not result from them. In doing so his hand was hurt, but that was the direct result of the improper machinery the owner had supplied. The case of a seaman was different from that of a labourer on land, because the seaman could not refuse to work although in the face of a seen danger— Rothwell v. Hutchison, &c., January 21, 1886, 13 R. 463.

The respondent argued—In the first place, it was plain from the pursuer's own statement that this accident occurred from his own fault in placing his hand where he should not have put it, and that the danger was obvious to him. Secondly, if there was fault in having this messenger rope badly spliced, it was the fault of the captain of the vessel, not of the owner, who had supplied the vessel with all proper gearing. The captain and the pursuer were fellow-workmen.

At advising—