Russian Sailor Wins the Right to Compensation

Just after lunch on the third and final day of a Trial of liability issues in the High Court before Mr Justice Nelson, the Defendant shipping company agreed to the Claimant's proposals to settle the liability issue on a two-thirds basis in his favour, with additional terms for the Defendant to pay the Claimant's legal costs and make an interim payment on account of damages of £300,000.00.

The Claimant was a "Pumpman" with 20 years experience working in merchant shipping. Late in June 2002 he joined the all Russian crew of the Defendant's chemical tanker "The Stolt Hawk". On 4 August 2002 whilst the Stolt Hawk was waiting to dock at Alexandria, Egypt, the Claimant noticed a leaking steam pipe on the deck which he thought required an urgent repair. After a short discussion with the ship's welder, he tried to obtain the necessary section of pipe and support angle for the repair from a long, narrow storage compartment. Whilst the Claimant was cutting the metal angle, the hacksaw blade broke, he turned away to get a blade and in doing so fell through a large open hatch in the floor and landed heavily on the deck below breaking his back and causing paraplegia at T12.

The accident was not witnessed by any other crew members. It was subsequently investigated by the tanker's Senior Officers and Captain. The Captain then submitted a form to the Defendant's Safety Department describing the Claimant as having slipped and fallen through the hatch and attributing the cause of the accident to the hatch having been left open and unguarded in breach of their safety manual.

However the Defendants later raised queries as to the Claimant's description of the accident. They made allegations that he was not at the time of the accident carrying out work duties. Contrary to their initial Health & Safety investigations they claimed the hatch had been guarded, albeit only with a rope rather than the type of metal guard arrangement required by their own safety manual. They also argued that some lower standard ought to be applied as the accident occurred on a foreign vessel owned by a foreign national in foreign waters and with a foreign crew.

Gerard McDermott QC presented the Claimant's case to the Court including the Claimant's own evidence, the evidence of a former crew mate (who travelled from Russia for the purpose) and expert evidence from Paul Cavagan of Brookes Bell. Paul Cavagan's evidence was that there had been a clear breach of the Defendant's Safety Manual and the Code of Safe Working Practices by the failure for this hatch to be guarded. Even if the rope alleged by the Defendants had been present it would not amount to a guard, an adequate guard could quite easily have been made by the ship's mechanics, but the Claimant had taken a real risk to his own safety in working so close to this open hatch.

After hearing from two witnesses called by the Defendants, but notably before the evidence from the Captain of the ship and the Defendant's expert, the Defendant chose to settle the claim on the two-thirds basis (plus associated terms) proposed by Gerard McDermott QC and Julian Chamberlayne of Stewarts Law for the Claimant earlier that morning. Mr Justice Nelson described the settlement as sensible and added that it is always better for claims to be resolved by agreement where that is possible.

The case will continue for a detailed assessment of the past and future losses of the Claimant, with a view to providing damages to restore his quality of life. Once the Claimant receives his interim damages he will be able to arrange to see his wife for the first time in over 2 years. He is also keen to continue his flight training with the British Disabled Flying Club.