The plaintiff was a passenger on board the first defendant's boat which collided with the second defendant's boat, thereby leading to the plaintiff suffering severe injuries. The first defendant was inebriated at the time of the accident and had driven his boat at a high speed in poor visibility. The plaintiff brought an action in negligence against the first and second defendants. The Court found that the first defendant was totally responsible for the accident as well as the plaintiff's injuries.  

The issue before the Court was whether the first defendant was entitled to limit his liability pursuant to s 574 of the Canada Shipping Act, RSC 1985 c S-9 (the Act), which is in similar terms to art 3 of the LLMC 1957. Under s 574 (arts 1.1 and 3.1.b of the LLMC 1957), a ship owner is entitled to limit its liability if the personal injury suffered by a claimant occurred without the shipowner’s actual fault or privity.  

Held: The first defendant was not entitled to limit his liability because the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the first defendant's actual fault and privity.

The burden of proof was on the first defendant to show that he was free of any fault which contributed to the accident or that he was in no way privy to the accident. The Court found that the first defendant had failed to prove that his activities as a shipowner were without faulty or privity. The first defendant was inebriated at the time of the accident and had driven his boat at a high speed in poor visibility. He had also driven his boat in a careless and cavalier manner. These factors directly led to the accident and caused the plaintiff's injuries. The first defendant was thus not free of actual fault and was not entitled to limit his liability. The plaintiff was entitled to a full recovery against the first defendant.

[For the unsuccessful appeal to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, see Conrad v Snair (CMI954).]