Mohamed Fami Hassan v Swissco Pte Ltd (Government of the Republic of Iraq (Iraqi State Enterprise for Maritime Transport, Third Party)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: T S Sinnathuray J
• Judgment Date: 19 June 1985
• Neutral Citation: [1985] SGHC 18
• Date: 19 June 1985
• Subject Matter: Tort,Plaintiff seriously injured on board vessel,Personal injuries cases,Quantum,Employers’ duties,Duty to provide safe system of work,Interest,Loading oil drums,Negligence,Plaintiff becoming quadriplegic following industrial accident,Breach of duty,Employment Law,Duty of employers,Use of can hooks for unloading oil drums,Whether payable,Employee sustaining injury when drum slipped and fell on him,Whether safe system of work,Use of can hooks,Measure of damages,Damages
• Docket Number: Suit No 2517 of 1981
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Anne Loke (Cooma Lau & Loh & M Karthigesu),Third Party absent
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mohamed bin Abdullah (Murphy & Dunbar)

In this action, the plaintiff`s claim is for damages for personal injuries and for consequential loss suffered by him as a result of an accident which occurred on 27 May 1979 in the course of his employment by the defendants on board a motor launch `Sea Supply`. It is not in dispute that during the course of loading three oil drums from `Sea Supply` onto a larger vessel `14 Ramadhan` one drum fell and the plaintiff was injured.

At the material time `Sea Supply` and `14 Ramadhan` were somewhere near the Eastern Anchorage, about two miles away from the last of the vessels anchored at this Anchorage. On this evidence the vessels were somewhere close to international waters. Captain Hong who gave evidence for the defendants as an expert witness when asked on this topic said that the vessels were outside Port Limits and were in waters used by foreign going ships which did not intend to enter the Port of Singapore.

Before I deal with the accident, I should say a few words on `Sea Supply`. It is one of the vessels owned by the defendants, a ship chandling company. It is a motor launch with a hatch in the hull which extends over most of the space below the deck of the vessel. Nearer the stem of the launch is the wheelhouse. As the name it bears, the launch is used for the supply of stores and other things required by ships that come into Singapore. The crew of `Sea Supply` consists of a serang, an engine driver and two deckhands who have been described by the managing director of the defendants as hatch coolies.

On the material day `Sea Supply` went to `14 Ramadhan` to deliver 21 drums of lubricating oil. The plaintiff said that as `Sea Supply` approached `14 Ramadhan`, the latter was making way through the water. As `14 Ramadhan` was going faster than `Sea Supply`, on instructions from the serang, the plaintiff contacted `Sea Supply` over the radio telephone and requested it to slow down. In due course `Sea Supply` came alongside `14 Ramadhan`. The plaintiff said that `Sea Supply` was secured to `14 Ramadhan` at the bow and stern.

There is an issue of fact whether `14 Ramadhan` was making way through the water when `Sea Supply` came alongside. Chan, the other hatch coolie, who gave evidence for the defendants said that `14 Ramadhan` was anchored. He said that when they were approaching `14 Ramadhan`, he did not see any waves caused by the propeller of that vessel. He therefore viewed that the vessel was anchored.

On the subject of mooring, Chan said that `Sea Supply` was moored to `14 Ramadhan` by the bow mooring line only. In cross-examination, however, Chan was not sure whether the `Sea Supply` was also secured to `14 Ramadhan` at the aft. He said he did not see it because as soon as he had tied `Sea Supply` to `14 Ramadhan` at the bow he went down into the hatch to prepare for the unloading of the drums.

I find as a fact that `14 Ramadhan` was making way outside the Eastern Anchorage when `Sea Supply` came alongside and made fast to it as described by the plaintiff. I reject the evidence of Chan, for there is other evidence that it does not follow because he did not see any waves in the rear of `14 Ramadhan` that `14 Ramadhan` was not making way through the water. As regards the mooring of `Sea Supply`, it is inconceivable that Chan who was on a small vessel did not see `Sea Supply` fastened to `14 Ramadhan` at the stem. Here I recall the evidence of Captain Bird, the expert witness for the plaintiff, who said that even if `14 Ramadhan` had been anchored it would be extremely hazardous for cargo to be transferred from `Sea Supply` to `14 Ramadhan` without having mooring lines fore and aft. Also, on the evidence, I accept the submission of Mr Abdullah for the plaintiff that it is not altogether unusual for a vessel to load whilst it is making way.

Next, on the topic of loading of the drums from `Sea Supply` onto `14 Ramadhan`, it is not in dispute that Chan was in the hatch deck of `Sea Supply`. A derrick line came down from `14 Ramadhan` with a hook at the end of the line. Chan used drum hooks, also described as can hooks, and fastened three drums. Earlier, Chan had put the ring hook which is at one end of the can hooks onto the hook of the derrick line. Chan then signalled to the plaintiff who was on the deck of `Sea Supply` that the drums were ready to be hoisted. The plaintiff in turn signalled a deckhand on the deck of `14 Ramadhan` that `Sea Supply` was ready to have the drums lifted. It is to be inferred, as there is no direct evidence, that the deckhand on `14 Ramadhan` then signalled his winch operator to start the winch for the three drums to be lifted from `Sea Supply`. The evidence is the drums were lifted to about 18 to 20 ft above the deck of `Sea Supply`. At that height, the drums were at about the deck level of `14 Ramadhan`.

As to what happened then, there are two versions. The plaintiff said that when the drums were above `Sea Supply`, the serang gave instructions to release or cut the bow line. He said the instructions were not directed to Chan or himself. He said he went forward from the area of the wheelhouse where he was standing and was proceeding towards the bow when suddenly he was knocked down and became unconscious. According to him, the reason why the serang had given those instructions...