Offshore Nautical (CI) Ltd. v Quality Time Training Ltd. & Ors

A person at the helm of a motor vessel must keep a proper lookout and follow a clear visual course. Electronic navigational aids do not displace that responsibility. Where the helmsman becomes disorientated, he should slow down and regain his bearings. A collision with a lit buoy will ordinarily establish the helmsman’s responsibility, save in exceptional circumstances. A captain may nevertheless bear contributory responsibility where inadequate preparation or briefing materially contributes to the accident.

The claimant sought £223,105.64 for the constructive total loss of a motor yacht which collided with a lit buoy during a night delivery voyage. The third defendant, Mr Bailey, was at the helm. The second defendant, Mr Elliott, was captain and navigator, and had arranged the delivery through the first defendant training company. Mr Bailey denied responsibility and pursued third-party proceedings against Mr Elliott.

The principal issues were whether Mr Bailey had negligently steered the vessel into the buoy and, if so, how responsibility should be apportioned between him and Mr Elliott.

1. Mr Bailey was negligent. He was competent to helm the vessel and had been instructed to pass through a clearly identified gap between two buoys. He failed to keep a proper lookout, became preoccupied with the electronic plotter and radar, and continued at speed after losing his sense of position.

2. Electronic navigational devices are aids only. They do not excuse the person at the helm from maintaining a visual lookout, particularly where a visual course has been given. If the helmsman becomes uncertain or disorientated, he should slow down and collect his thoughts.

3. The person at the helm ordinarily bears responsibility for colliding with a stationary, lit buoy, save in exceptional circumstances. Mr Bailey was the driver rather than a trainee under instruction, and it was his responsibility to keep the lookout.

4. Mr Elliott was also at fault. He arrived late, allowed little time for pre-voyage checks and failed to provide a proper briefing or take Mr Bailey through the chart and route. Although Mr Bailey remained primarily responsible, the inadequate preparation materially contributed to the risk of confusion.

5. Responsibility was apportioned 85 per cent to Mr Bailey and 15 per cent to Mr Elliott. Judgment had already been allowed against Mr Elliott and the first defendant. The claimant was entitled to its costs against Mr Bailey, with Mr Bailey entitled to recover a proportionate part from Mr Elliott.