Schofield v Gultepe

A vessel navigating in waters where swimmers may reasonably be present must keep a proper lookout and proceed at a safe speed. A speed that is lawful in open water may still be excessive in a confined bay near swimmers. The court treated a speed of 3 knots or less as appropriate where swimmers were known to be present, with a lower speed or stoppage required where swimmers were close by. Local navigation regulations may provide important guidance on safe speed even where their precise application is uncertain. A collision and causation may be established by the combined effect of contemporaneous eyewitness evidence, the claimant’s reliable recollection, expert medical evidence and the defendant’s own evidence. A driver may be liable despite not appreciating that contact with a swimmer occurred.

The claimant suffered serious injuries while swimming in Lindos Bay, Rhodes. She alleged that she was struck by a rigid inflatable tender operated by the first defendant, the skipper of a motor yacht owned by the second defendant. The defendants denied any collision and suggested that the injuries resulted from another vessel or a fall from rocks.

The court determined whether the tender caused the injuries and, if so, whether the first defendant was at fault or negligent. The parties agreed that the relevant duties included keeping a good lookout and proceeding at a safe speed, and that the second defendant could be vicariously liable.

1. Collision and causation. The claim was proved on the balance of probabilities. The court accepted the claimant’s recovered memories, the contemporaneous evidence of Mr Melis, and the evidence that the tender returned over its outward track and picked her up. The tender was the only vessel shown to have been sufficiently near the claimant within the short period in which she could have remained injured in the water without drowning.
2. The evidence did not support a fall or jump from the rocks. The medical evidence established that the injuries were consistent with impact from a vessel travelling at 6–7 knots or more. The court accepted that analysis and rejected the argument that the injuries could not have been caused by the tender.
3. Lookout and safe speed. The tender was travelling at not less than 6–7 knots and probably faster. The first defendant was navigating about 60 metres from shore in an area where swimmers were known to be present. He failed to keep a proper lookout. Had he done so, he should have seen the claimant, reduced speed and avoided her.
4. The court applied the standard reflected in Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyds Law Rep 163. The Collision Regulations supplied a standard of care, and the Greek local regulations were relevant to determining safe speed. The court considered that 3 knots or less was appropriate where swimmers were known to be present. The tender’s speed exceeded the 5-knot restriction applicable within 200 metres of the shore under General Harbour Regulations No.20.
5. The first defendant’s failure to keep a proper lookout and his excessive speed caused the collision and materially contributed to the severity of the injuries. The first defendant was liable, and the second defendant was also liable on the agreed principles of vicarious liability.