|
''The Rhône v The Peter AB Widener'' is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the "directing mind" principle of corporate liability. The Court held that an individual must have "governing authority over the management and operation" of the corporation to be considered a "directing mind". ==Background== While moored in the Port of Montreal, the ''Rhône'' was struck by the ''Peter Widener'', a barge that was being towed by four tugboats (the ''Ohio'' in front, the ''South Carolina'' and the ''Ste. Marie II'' on either side, and the ''Rival'' at the rear). Of the four tugs, only two, the ''South Carolina'' and the ''Ohio'', were owned by Great Lakes Towing Company. Captain Kelch, on the tug ''Ohio'', acted as ''de facto'' master of the flotilla. The owners of the ''Rhône'' sued the barge and the tug owners for damaging their ship, and North Central Maritime Corporation, the owner of the barge, sued Great Lakes for breach of its towage contract. Great Lakes denied liability in both actions and counterclaimed for limitation of liability pursuant to provisions of the ''Canada Shipping Act''.〔''Canada Shipping Act'', R.S.C. 1970, c. S‑9, s. 647(2)〕 At the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada, the judge apportioned 80 percent of the liability to Great Lakes and 20 percent to North Central in the first action (based on the negligence of the respective captains), and found Great Lakes to be totally at fault in the second action. Great Lakes appealed both decisions to the Federal Court of Appeal, and North Central also cross‑appealed the trial judge's finding of fault against the ''Widener''. In its ruling, the FCA: : * confirmed the finding of negligence against Captain Kelch on the ''Ohio'' and against the ''Widener'' but rejected the assessment of fault against the ''South Carolina'', noting that any errors it had made had been pursuant to orders from Captain Kelch on the Ohio and not any negligence on the part of those responsible for her navigation : * maintained the trial judge's overall finding with respect to both the negligence and the apportionment of liability as between Great Lakes and North Central : * agreed with the trial judge that Captain Kelch was a directing mind of Great Lakes, at least for the purpose of carrying out Great Lakes' obligations in relation to the tow of the ''Widener''. As such, it found Great Lakes was not entitled to limit its liability since the damage did not occur "without its actual fault or privity". Great Lakes challenged the denial of its counterclaims through appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. There were three issues at bar: #Is the captain of Great Lakes' tug Ohio a directing mind of Great Lakes by virtue of the fact that he exercised some discretion and performed some non‑navigational functions as an incident of his employment? #Does s. 647(2) of the ''Canada Shipping Act'' apply to limit Great Lakes' liability with respect to errors committed in the navigation of other vessels within the flotilla not owned by Great Lakes? #In the event that Great Lakes is entitled to limit its liability under the ''Canada Shipping Act'', what vessels must be taken into account in determining the extent of its liability? 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「The Rhône v The Peter AB Widener」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|