CASE DIGEST - Urrutia & Co V. Baco River Plantation Co; G.R. No. L-7675 J. Moreland; 25 March 1913

THREE ZONE THEORY

Urrutia & Co V. Baco River Plantation Co; G.R. No. L-7675

J. Moreland; 25 March 1913

DOCTRINE: This case exemplifies the three zone theory already referred to. In the first zone no rules apply. In the second the burden is on the vessel required to keep away and avoid the danger. The third zone covers the period in which errors in extremis occur; and the rule is that the vessel which has forced the privileged vessel into danger is responsible even if the privileged vessel has committed an error within that zone.

FACTS:

A collision between the steamship Nuestra Señora del Pilar, owned by the plaintiff, and the schooner Mangyan owned by the defendant, occurred in Verde Island North Passage. The sail vessel was sailing with a fresh breeze dead astern, her sails wing and wing. The steamer was seen by those on board the sailing vessel some time before the actual collision, sailing erratically. The sail vessel kept her course steadily until just before the actual contact when her helmsman threw her hard to port in an effort to avoid the collision. The movement, however, was unsuccessful and the sail vessel rammed the steamer on the starboard quarter well aft. The steamer sank and eight lives were lost. The sail vessel was considerably injured. Thus, an action was brought by the owners of the steamship against the owner of the sail vessel, to recover the value of the destroyed steamer and the damages caused by reason of its destruction.

The defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and set up a counterclaim for damages, alleging that the injuries sustained by the said vessel were due to the gross negligence of those handling plaintiff's steamer. Then, an intervenor was allowed in support of his application that the steamer was carrying for him at the time several thousand pesos' worth of merchandise as freight, which was lost as a result of the collision.

ISSUE:

Whether the sail vessel was negligent in continuing its course without variation up to the moment that it found itself in extremis, hence the defendant is entitled to its counterclaim?

RULING:

Yes. The sail vessel was negligent hence the defendant is entitled to counterclaim.

The trial court found that those managing the steamer were guilty of gross negligence and that for that reason the plaintiff could recover nothing.

The defendant was entitled to recover upon its counterclaim.

 Article 20 of the International Rules for the Prevention of Collision at Sea is as follows: "If two ships, one of which is a sailing ship and the other a steam ship, are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of collision, the steam ship shall keep out of the way, of the sailing ship."

Article 21 is as follows: "where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed."

Generally speaking, in collisions between vessels there exist three divisions of time, or zones; The first division covers all the time up to the moment when the risk of collision may be said to have begun. Within this zone no rule is applicable because none is necessary. Each vessel is free to direct its course as it deems best without reference to the movements of the other vessel. The second division covers the time between the moment when the risk of collision begins and the moment when it has become a practical certainty. The third division covers the time between the moment when collision has become a practical certainty and the moment of actual contact.

Here, it was during the time when the sail vessel was passing through the third zone that it changed its course to port in order to avoid, if possible, the collision. This act may be said to have been done in extremis, and, even if wrong, the sailing vessel is not responsible for the result.

This case exemplifies the three zone theory already referred to. In the first zone no rules apply. In the second the burden is on the vessel required to keep away and avoid the danger. The third zone covers the period in which errors in extremis occur; and the rule is that the vessel which has forced the privileged vessel into danger is responsible even if the privileged vessel has committed an error within that zone.

The duty of the sailing vessel to keep her course is well exemplified in the leading case of The Lucille vs. Respass (15 Wall., 676), which was a collision between a schooner and a steamer. Both vessels saw each other in time to have avoided the collision.

We are satisfied from the authorities that, under the facts stated in the opinion of the trial court, the defendant is entitled to recover such damages as reasonably and naturally flowed from the collision. There is sufficient evidence in the record to fix such damages with reasonable accuracy.