Crane wire damaged- stevedores' mishandling?

Summary prepared by Prokopios Krikris, FCIArb, Arbitrator

Stevedore damage claims are very common for those of us working in shipping operations/ post-fixture claims. Crane wire damage is perhaps one of the most common, along with damage to cargo (especially spillages) or to the ship’s equipment, such as ladders and rails. Crane wire damage can result from poor maintenance, stevedores’ mishandling or other causes. In one case, metallurgical analysis showed that the wire itself was defective, even though it was brand new. Such incidents often lead to disputes over off-hire periods (or suspension of laytime under a voyage charter) and the cost of replacing the damaged wire. Whether such claims succeed will largely depend on the quality of the evidence.

The arbitration case

One of the issues in this arbitration concerned the costs of replacing a damaged crane wire as sustained during loading log cargo, as alleged being caused by stevedores’ mishandling.

In short, the Owners relied on the fact that the crane had been tested on the same day being damaged by stevedores, the chief engineer indicated to the Owners and Charterers’ surveyors that it was caused by rough handling, and the Charterers’ surveyor’s report mentioned that the cause of the damage was brought by improper handling of the crane. The nature of the damages indicated a sudden and block slacking of the runner and jib simultaneously at the lowest limit of the limit switch. Owners further said that pointing to pre-existing defect while suffered a minor breakdown does not constitute corroborative evidence and fails to carry charterers’ burden of proof in rebuttal.

Charterers queried why there was no damage to any other cranes in loading or discharging, expect for this crane. The surveyors indicate into their report that they did not witness the breakdown, merely reported what the Master and Chief engineer said. Charterer contended that a sudden blockage of the hydraulic oil supply was the type of problem that can manifest itself inconsistently under working conditions, and there was no basis to suggest that the only possible cause was lowering with excessive speed.

Charterer questioned the practical reliability of the test before classification for its test of the crane with a 30 ton lift which was accomplished prior to discharge commencement. The test conducted alongside a berth and had to have a static test performed, the crane was not tested under the working conditions and there was no indication that the limit switch was tested or that the crane was lowered during the test on the point where the limit switch was engaged.

Charterers contended that the Owners did not submit the deck and engine logs, records of maintenance or repairs of the crane for the period covering four voyages immediately proceeding to this voyage, and submitted that the arbitrator should draw adverse inferences from the Owners’ failure  to submit the documentation, which would possibly reflect pre-existing mechanical problem with the crane.

Charterers pointed to absence in this case of credible eyewitness verification that the stevedore crane operator was observed to have lowered the crane too fast, absent which unless the Master's allegation was accepted at face value, Owners’ claim had to fail for want of proof.

The arbitrator held that the Charterers sought to assert pre-existing defect. From the facts, the arbitrator could not conclude with certainty whether or not the damages were caused by rough handling of the stevedores or that there was a pre-existing defect.

It was straining coincidence, absent eyewitness evidence the crane operator was observed to have lowered the crane too fast, that the crane's breakdown as soon as placed into service for both loading and discharge was exclusively caused by mishandling of the crane by the crane operators. The remainder of the Vessel's cargo gear functioned without fault throughout cargo operations at both ports. Why were only the operators of the damaged crane at both ports guilty of carelessness?

There were a number of apparent alternative possibilities the casualty was engendered by the crane, its limit switches and motor possessing defects responsible for the crane failure. The Owners had not demonstrated that the casualty was attributable to stevedores’ mishandling. Nothwithstanding the Masters and Chief engineer’s allegations, there was no eyewitness evidence presented, enabling a conclusion the cause was exclusively one of crane operator's negligence. The Owners’ claim failed.

The fact that Owners did not respond to Charterer's request for production of specified documentation covering the four previous voyages which might have indicated a history of operational difficulties with crane created adverse inference, which did not assist Owners with its claim.

Note: This is for information purposes only. The picture shown is from a different case and is unrelated to this arbitration.n.