Legal cases
A panel made up of the Wreck Commissioner at Halifax and two other sea captains investigated the collision on behalf of the Canadian government. Their report, published by 29 July, exonerated Cromartyshire's Master and officers. They found that La Bourgogne was not following the sea lane indicated on the nautical chart for that part of the North Atlantic, and was steaming at great speed. They found that had Captain Deloncle "adopted the rules laid down... his vessel could not have been in the position indicated by the disaster". Further, the panel reported that "many of the principal steamship companies do not follow the routes laid down and assented to by all the parties in interest and apparent good faith."<r[38]
Cromartyshire's owner sued CGT in the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice in London for the damage to his ship. CGT sought to quash the writ on the grounds that it was a foreign corporation. On 9 August 1898 Francis Jeune, President of the Admiralty Division, ruled that the English court has jurisdiction, and he rejected CGT's plea.<r[39] On 12 January 1899 the Admiralty Division found in Cromartyshire's favour and awarded her owners damages and costs. The court found that La Bourgogne was sailing at excessive speed, which was why the sailing ship's bow raked so far along the steamship's side. This ruptured more than one of her bulkheads, causing her to list and then sink relatively quickly. It also damaged her starboard lifeboats, and the list so far to starboard prevented her port boats from being lowered.<r[40]
Relatives of the dead also sued CGT. 15 lawsuits were begun in New York, and by 24 August claimants were considering whether to transfer proceedings to London, or to Paris.<r[41] One New York widower sued CGT for $30,000 for the death of his wife.<r[42]
On 5 October 1898 one of La Bourgogne's survivors, Eugene Eggenschewiler, was charged with embezzlement. He had worked for a factory in New Jersey that processed leather. He had stolen the formula for one of the company's secret processes, defrauded the company of $65 to $70, and persuaded the company to pay his fare to Europe for a holiday. In fact he embarked on La Bourgogne carrying $6,000, and planned to start a business in France using the secret formula that he had stolen. His plan was thwarted by the ship being sunk.<r[43]
On 29 December 1898 the owners of the schooner William H. Cross brought a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston against the dead body that they had found and buried three months earlier (see above). In the body's clothing they found US and French money to the value of $1,050. Efforts to find his relatives, to whom to return the money, had failed, so the owners were suing the body as a derelict.<r[44]
On 28 June 1899 a court in Paris awarded FF 100,000 damages to a Madame Resal for the death of her husband aboard La Bourgogne. The court found Captain Deloncle at fault, and CGT responsible for his actions.<r[45] However, on 18 January 1900 a court of appeal in Paris overturned the verdict, finding that neither Captain Deloncle nor CGT to be at fault.<r[46]
On 22 March 1900, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago dismissed the lawsuit of Charles Rundell against CGT. He was administrator of the estate of Edwin Rundell, who had been killed in the sinking. Judges Woods, Allen, and Bunn found that it was not shown that Rundell had died on La Bourgogne, and that a US District Court cannot enforce the law of France. Rundell had claimed $55,000. Six other suits, also each claiming $55,000, were also to be dismissed.<r[47]
On 22 August 1900, 36 parties filed claims against CGT in the a US District Court. Their claims totalled more than $1 million.<r[48] However, on 15 May 1900 CGT had filed a petition for limitation of liability with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in New Haven.<r[49]
In April 1901, claimants asked the District Court to order CGT to provide as evidence La Bourgogne's logbooks for the two years prior to the sinking, and of any other log books from that period for ships on the same route of which Deloncle was Master at the time. On 15 May the District Court granted the order. In October 1901 Judge Townsend heard the case. CGT had not complied with the order, and claimed that it could not produce the logbooks as they "had not been preserved". The District Court rejected CGT's submission as "hearsay". However, the claimants did not pursue the matter further in the case.
On 22 March 1902 Judge Townsend ruled in CGT's favour, finding that the company had properly equipped La Bourgogne with lifeboats and other safety equipment. Townsend found that CGT had provided the correct regulations for its ships to reduce speed in fog, and it was not the company's fault that La Bourgogne had failed to do so. Hence he ruled that claimants could not recover damages for negligence causing loss of life on the high seas.<r[49] Townsend also granted CGT's petitions to appoint a trustee to whom to transfer CGT's interests in the ship and its pending freight, and a commissioner to receive proof from claimants making claims against CGT.
Judge Dillon, whose wife and daughter were killed in the sinking, told The New York Times that "he did not understand that this decision absolved the company for responsibility for the accident, but that it merely established that the company was not liable under the limited liability statute". He had given up litigation in the case "in disgust long ago. No matter if a hundred courts or men should say that there was no culpability attaching to the company for the loss of that ship, I should know that there was."<r[49]
La Bourgogne's victims included a US millionaire, T Straus, with his wife and two daughters.<r[50] He left an estate valued at $4 million, which the US authorities held for want of claimants. On 29 March 1901 his German relatives in Stalluponen, East Prussia (now Nesterov in the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia), retained counsel to claim his estate.<r[51]
On 9 May 1904 the commissioner appointed by Judge Townsend submitted his report. He recommended compensation payments to five claimants for the value of money and personal effects that were lost when relatives of theirs were killed in the sinking.
On 27 June 1905 the United States Circuit Court of Appeals fixed CGT's liability at FF 113,419, equivalent to about $35,000. Claimants had been seeking nearly $3 million, and indicated their intention to appeal to the US Supreme Court.<r[52]