Here, too, and following the investigation, the 2017 Raspan Procedure (N/2) stated that "as long as the tanker was in contact, and in accordance with the pilot's decision, it would be on standby for immediate intervention."
- In summary, it emerges from the compilation that the responsibility for the chain of events that led to the failure to release the ship from the ignition flow pipe and subsequently to its confinement, to the tearing of ropes and the detachment of cables from buoys, to the timing of the ship's release from the connector and to the damage that is the subject of the lawsuit, lies with IEC and its person responsible for the entire loading process.
The plaintiffs' claims of the defendant's liability were not proven
- The liability of the entity managing the loading process (in this case, IEC and anyone appointed on its behalf to serve as a loading officer) does not prioritiously eliminate possible liability on the part of the ship's crew for damage caused during the loading process.
However, liability on the part of the team depends on the ability and need on its part to anticipate the occurrence of the damage and the ability to control the course of the events, as well as the existence of a causal connection between its conduct and the damage caused.
- In this case, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant (the ship's owner and the person who employed her crew) was liable for the damage, for three main reasons:
- failure or defect in the arrest mechanism of two of the winches to which the cables and ropes were attached;
- negligence on the part of the ship's crew in the loading process;
- Deception on the part of the ship's crew regarding the ship's data and capabilities as provided in advance.
- To be precise , the burden of proving these claims was placed on the plaintiffs, and they had to meet it in two aspects: one, the very existence of liability; The second is the existence of a causal connection between such liability and the damage that is the subject of the claim.
- As we will see immediately, the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of proof in this case.
The Claim of Failure of the Two-Winches Brake Mechanism
- According to the plaintiffs, the cause of the accident, and at least one of its causes, was a failure in the restraint system of two winches (winches Nos. 8 and 10) to which the cables and ropes that were eventually released and torn were tied, as described above, and therefore the liability in relation to this factor should be placed on the defendant, the owner of the ship and the person responsible for the integrity of the systems in it.
- The plaintiffs base the claim of failure in the restraint mechanism on two main foundations:
- The very fact that cables were released from the winches, all the more so in view of the fact that this occurred at the strength of the winds that the winches were supposed to withstand, in accordance with the ship's declarations;
- the very replacement of brake pads in winches Nos. 8 and 10 after the event;
- As to the argument regarding the very loosening of cables and/or the tearing of ropes that were tied to the winches, I will note that it does not, in the circumstances of the case, attest to a failure or defect in the winches, including their restraint mechanisms (and in any event, the rule of "the thing speaks for him" does not apply in this case).
If it had been an incident that occurred in one fell swoop, in which cables and ropes were torn and loosened in a short period of time, it would have been assumed that there was a possibility of a defect or failure in the equipment. However, the incident did not occur in one fell swoop, but rather lasted for several hours, during which the winches were subjected to a continuous and cumulative load.