One way or another, taking into account the evidence as detailed above, there is no basis for determining that the defendant's conduct in the circumstances of the case established an evidentiary presumption, which was not contradicted, regarding a failure in the winches prior to the incident.
- Beyond the aforesaid, even if we assume that there was a defect in the restraint mechanisms of the winches, no causal connection, including legal, has been proven between this failure and the occurrence of the damage that is the subject of the claim.
As stated, the damage was not caused by a detachment or a rupture in cables or ropes that occurred in a single blow, but rather in a rolling event, the overall responsibility for which was the person in charge of charging on behalf of IEC.
Even if we assume that the release of the cable at 5:00 p.m. was due to a failure in the winch to which it was connected, it cannot be said that the ship's remaining in its place, confined and exposed for hours afterwards to the wind regime that prevailed there, is the result of that failure, and it cannot be said that the damages that occurred subsequent to the connector, as well as the very need to relocate the loading place, are legally connected to that failure. As much as it was.
In my opinion, in terms of legal causation, it should be said that the cause of the damage that ultimately occurred was the way the loading process itself was managed, in the face of the change in weather conditions, and not the failure of the winches, to the extent that there was such a failure.
It is not for nothing that Mr. Mann, the investigator on behalf of Raspan, noted in paragraph 14 of his investigation that "it should not be ruled out that the cranks of the winch stop were worn. Even if they were normal, in this situation there would be a very high probability that the cables/ropes would be released from the stop."
Another way of looking at things is through the prism of section 64(2) of the Torts Ordinance, which states that the causal link between a certain negligence and a damage event is severe, if the fault of another - in this case the party responsible for the loading process - is the "decisive cause" of the damage event.