In addition, certificates of integrity were presented with respect to all of the ship's equipment from August and September 2015 (Appendix 6 to the Biatelistotsky opinion).
- Even the fact that the brake pads were replaced in two of the winches after the incident (winches Nos. 8 and 10) does not indicate a defect or failure in them.
As explained by the defendant's expert, there is a possibility that the replacement of the pads in these winches was due to damage caused to them due to their exposure to continuous loads in the event itself (and as stated, the responsibility for their continued exposure to such loads rests with the developer who was responsible for managing the loading process). See the testimony of Mr. Golan, on page 19 of the transcript of the meeting, line 14 onwards).
As mentioned, in another part of the winches from which the cables were released, the pads were not replaced after the event, because it was found that this was not necessary, to teach you that there is no necessary connection between the release of the cables and the initial condition of the pads.
- I did not lose sight of the statement of the expert, Mr. Shlomo Mann, who conducted the investigation on behalf of Raspan, when he noted in paragraph 15 of the findings chapter of the investigation, that "it should not be ruled out that the winch stop pads were worn." However, as Mr. Mann himself noted, he did not examine the winches and did not investigate this issue in depth, and his statement that "there should not be ruled out" is not equivalent to sufficient proof of the defect that occurred in the pads.
- The plaintiffs pointed to the replacement of the brake pads with two of the winches after the incident, not only as evidence of the faulty cooler going into the incident (and as stated, I did not find sufficient evidence in this regard), but as an attempt to conceal harmful evidence, which, according to them, was joined by the fact that the defendant prevented the plaintiffs' expert from examining the winches, including the pads that were replaced. According to the plaintiffs, this situation establishes an evidentiary presumption that the winches were defective prior to the incident.
I did not find any substance in these claims.