Law: Evidence Act (I of 1871)

Section: S. 23

(a) Vessel   -Floating dock comes within description of vessel.   (b) Negligence-   Contributory negligence-Collision between two vessels one moving and other stationary--Action for damages . Much higher standard of care expected of officers of former and burden lies on them to prove that collision was not occasioned by negligence on their part-Question of negligence-Depends upon facts of each case.   Where collision had taken place between two vessels, one at anchor and another in motion, the burden of proof in an action founded upon collision between such vessels, is upon the owner of the latter to prove that the collision was not occasioned by any negligence on their part.   Where, a ship, while in the process of being unberthed, struck against a floating dock (which comes within the description of vessel) and the boats tied to it, in an action founded upon the loss sustained by the latter, contributory negligence was pleaded on the ground that the vessel at anchor had not complied with the regulation to have lights on the boats:   Held, that the question of contributory negligence did not arise as the defendant could by exercise of ordinary care and diligence have avoided the mischief which happened and under the circumstances the plaintiff's negligence did not excuse the defendant. The consideration and the criterion of the respective duties and obligations on the part of persons in the charge of two moving vessels could not be applied to the case where the collision is between two vessels one moving and the other stationary. It is elementary that much higher standard of care is expected of the driver of a vehicle or the officers-in charge of a ship towards such vehicle or objects as are standing alongside at the time when the former begins to move out than when they are both moving.   Case law on the question of negligence, except for broad principles, cannot be of any great assistance because the question whether there was negligence as understood in law in a particular situation must depend on the facts of each case.   R. S. N. Co. Ltd. and 1. G. N. & Ry. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Kenai Madhab Chandra Iswur Chandra…