REPORT OF WRECK COMMISSIONER’S COURT:
Lusitania’s Sinking
July 18, 1915

Michael Sean Quinn
(For more information see below.)


As everyone knows, out of the 1,959 persons (passengers and crew) on the Lusitania 1,195 perished when a German submarine torpedoed the cruiser off the south coast of Ireland as part of World War I.  As is not unusual after incidents like this, even in yesteryear, litigation began immediately.

The event happened on May 7, 1915. The first case proceeded in the Wreck Commissioner’s Court[1*] sitting in, and around Westminister, Great Britain. The “trial” or “hearings” lasted several days (June, 15-18, 1015, while the “court order” bears the date July 17, 2015).  Thus the case began approximately 6 weeks after the catastrophe and was “decided” a month after that.  One might think this extraordinary, given the amount of time it to travel, etc., in those days. [The bracketed numbers are EndNote numbers.]

Various people testified; various depositions became part of the record; and Lord Mersey, the Commissioner,[2] heard the case and was assisted by several other appropriately experienced men served as “Assessors.”[3]  Lord Mersey himself delivered the “Report on Loss of the “Lusitania” pursuant to “The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 t o 1906.” (*Readers will notice reference to the Assessors in the lengthy quotation from Lore Mersey set forth below.)

The “Report” ended with a one page “ruling,” but there was a longer account of the facts of the case attached to it. A good deal of evidentially material is to be found annexed (attached, in today’s lingo) to the very short “order.”[4] It looks like all the material before the Commission can be found on the Internet under “Lusitania Inquiry Project”; however, I have yet to find the relevant war risk insurance policy issued by Liverpool to London [sometimes called “London and Liverpool”]War Risk Association.  One of the most interesting portions of those records is the testimony of Captain Turner who was in command of the ship.  (If a reader should have it in its pocket or purse, please send it along.)

The British government was trying to blame him (along with the German U-boat) for the disaster—that is, make him to blame and not it.[5] The Admiralty, of which Churchill was First Lord, representative from the cabinet,  at the time of the sinking, claimed among many other things that the ship was too close to shore, that it wasn’t going fast enough and that the crew of the ship was ill prepared and trained and so could not competently handle the problem. 

Captain Turner was asked whether the crew was “proficient,” and he said that it was not.  He was later asked if he meant that it was not “competent.” He said that he meant not such a thing. It was well known at the time, that virtually all experienced seamen had been “drafted” into the Royal Navy and that commercial lines were using less experienced hands. (Perhaps this is the kind of questioning and answering—distinguishing between proficiency and competence–only a litigator would love, but then, that’s what the author has done for 35 years, so far, along with insurance disputes.)

In the end, Lord Mersey held that everyone did just OK-to-fine, or better, and spent a good deal of his “opinion” extolling the competence and virtue of the crew and Captain Turner. He draws particular attention to an 18 year old newbie who, with a mate, courageously saved as many as 60 lives by heroic acts in the water.  Here is a famous part of his Report. It is quoted at length in The Lusitania [Petition of Cunard S.S. Co., Limited], 251 F. 715 (S.D.N.Y. 1918)[6]

Capt Turner was fully advised as to the means which, in the view of the Admiralty, were best calculated to avert the perils he was likely to encounter, and in considering the best question whether he is to blame for the catastrophe in which his voyage ended I have to bear this consideration in mind. It is certain that in some respects Capt. Turner did not follow the advice given to him.  It may be (though I seriously doubt it) that, had he done so, his ship would have reached Liverpool in safety. But the question remains: Was his conduct the conduct of a negligent or of an incompetent man? On this question I have sought the guidance of my assessors, who have rendered me invaluable assistance, and the conclusion at which I have arrived is that blame ought not to be imputed to the captain. The advice given to him, although meant for his most serious and careful consideration was not intended to deprive him of the right to exercise his skilled judgment in the difficult questions that might arise from time to time in the navigation of his ship. His omission to follow the advice in all respects cannot fairly be attributed either to negligence of incompetence. He exercised his judgment for the best. It was the judgment of a skilled and experienced man, and although others might have acted differently, and perhaps more successfully, he ought not, in my opinion, to be blamed.

Was Assessor Inglefield appointed for Lloyd’s related reasons? After all the war rich insurer was a Lloyds syndicate, was it not? Was Lord Mersey writing in such a way as to prevent the government’s getting away with blaming Captain Turner, while getting the government off the hook as well?

In any case, it is worth noting that Lord Mersey’s point might be put a bit differently today.  Today it might be said that Capt. Turner, like any other sea captain, at least a that time,  had the discretion to make decisions for a ship while at sea, and there wasn’t evidence to prove that Turner abused his discretion.

Eventually, the author may write further on this part of the litigation-“afterstory,”
especially as it pertains to insurance. Time will tell. 




Michael Sean Quinn, Ph.D., J.D., c.p.c.u. . . .
The Law Firm of Michael Sean Quinn et
Quinn and Quinn
                                 1300 West Lynn Street, Suite 208
                                             Austin, Texas 78703
                                                 (512) 296-2594
                                            (512) 344-9466 – Fax
                                E-mail:  mquinn@msquinnlaw.com






[1] It appears that this Court may, somehow be connected to the Board of Trade.  I am not yet clear how that worked.

[2] Significantly, Lord Mersey had served in a similar capacity after the sinking of the Titanic. For more on Lord Mersey, see Wikipedia, “John Bingham, and 1st Viscount Mersey.”

[3] In this case, an Assessor was a knowledgeable person that could advise the judge or commissioner as to facts, customs, industry practice, and the like.  One of the Assessors was Admiral Sir Edward Fitzmaurice Inglefield. After his naval career ended, he became Secretary to Lloyds of London (1906-21).  

[5] Parts of the general population found lots of reason to blame Admiralty: not send a convoy to protect the ship,  poor instructions to the ship captain, using endangering the ship as a device to encourage America to enter the war, not insisting that the ship zigzag, not making sure the crew was better trained, not requiring the ship to go around the north end of Ireland, not keeping the ship further away from shore– you name it.

[6] This case will be discussed in Part III of this series of blogs.