Cargo Shift on the Orkney Ferry

[bigtwin]

Anyway, I think that picture is taken looking astern, so the roll/list is to port.

You’re quite right.

Possibly sloppy journalism.

I'm just going by what I read here;

Ian

 

[Clive Beeza]

Surely the driver of the lorry should have secured his load .

Probably like the idiot I passed earlier this week who had a load of big concrete blocks on a flat bed trailer ...not a single retaining strap on them

you should have reported it I think

 

[Jerrywh]

That looks like a maritime lawyer's dream .. the legal consequences of incidents at sea are notoriously complex to unravel..

 

[LaurenceM]

The Channel Tunnel looks very appealing sometimes.

Used the tunnel last two years summer trips over - but the 10 hour journey down from Clydeside is a bit gruelling , especially for the dogs. And two overnight site stops. And £300 in diesel round trip … we are going Newcastle to Rotterdam next time come May .. .. especially as we are doing Northern Germany into Poland ..

 

[Mclouis700]

View attachment 1135157
Photo from a friend’s Facebook post, sent to him by one of his pals who was aboard the ferry. Apparently it was 1 week old.

In my incident (see earlier), the ferry developed a 37 degree list to port. A Norwegian driver and I sat in the driver’s lounge all night. We could see the lifeboats from there, never bothered to go back to my cabin to collect my passport (nor anything else) until we docked at Harwich. We had been bound for Immingham.

Interesting Insurance claim, Vehicle was stationary at the time of accident ! Feel very sorry for the owner

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[fionah]

Used the tunnel last two years summer trips over - but the 10 hour journey down from Clydeside is a bit gruelling , especially for the dogs. And two overnight site stops. And £300 in diesel round trip … we are going Newcastle to Rotterdam next time come May .. .. especially as we are doing Northern Germany into Poland ..

For the same reason we are doing the Rotterdam ferry. But we are doing the Hull-Rotterdam route as it is literally half the price of the Newcastle ferry!

 

[LaurenceM]

For the same reason we are doing the Rotterdam ferry. But we are doing the Hull-Rotterdam route as it is literally half the price of the Newcastle ferry!

We have to balance that against the saving in time and fuel coming from West Scotland it’s 3hrs and a bit to Newcastle and 5 and a bit to Hull .. too much for the dogs as well in one hop ..

 

[Pausim]

Photo from a friend’s Facebook post, sent to him by one of his pals who was aboard the ferry. Apparently it was 1 week old.

Ouch! Clearly not the owners fault, I hope they are with a good insurance company that will not penalise them.

 

[gus-lopez]

That looks like a maritime lawyer's dream .. the legal consequences of incidents at sea are notoriously complex to unravel..

Interesting Insurance claim, Vehicle was stationary at the time of accident ! Feel very sorry for the owner

I thought that any incident on a ferry was at the owners risk as they accepted no liability.

 

[Pausim]

The ferry company might say they accept no liability but I don’t think that is a defence against a negligence claim. Either the ferry or the lorry driver did not secure that load which will probably be a matter for Scottish Law, inside territorial waters.

I had an incident on a Calmac ferry which damaged my motorhome and was their fault. They paid up a few grand for my repairs. They said it was discretionary but I don’t believe they did it because they were feeling generous. NorthLink Ferries may be a different company but the same laws will apply.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ingwe]

Either the ferry or the lorry driver did not secure that load which will probably be a matter for Scottish Law, inside territorial waters.

I believe that the conditions of carriage of the company operating the ferry contains a jurisdictional clause which provides that the law of Scotland applies. I concur with Pausim that the ferry owner will not be able to simply exclude all liability for damage where they have been negligent.

 

[Scottish Scrutineer]

Used the tunnel last two years summer trips over - but the 10 hour journey down from Clydeside is a bit gruelling , especially for the dogs. And two overnight site stops. And £300 in diesel round trip … we are going Newcastle to Rotterdam next time come May .. .. especially as we are doing Northern Germany into Poland ..

Only sailed out of Newcastle once. It was a frustrating day; had to leave Kirkcaldy earlier than if I’d been catching either Hull ferries, and sailed past The Wash at about the same time as we’d be coming out the lock at Hull. Didn’t get in to Europort any earlier either, not that that make much difference as we were usually back on the quay at Masshaven by early afternoon. I think the only saving was diesel, but the fare was higher.

Interesting Insurance claim, Vehicle was stationary at the time of accident ! Feel very sorry for the owner

Ouch! Clearly not the owners fault, I hope they are with a good insurance company that will not penalise them.

The ferry company might say they accept no liability but I don’t think that is a defence against a negligence claim. Either the ferry or the lorry driver did not secure that load which will probably be a matter for Scottish Law, inside territorial waters.

I had an incident on a Calmac ferry which damaged my motorhome and was their fault. They paid up a few grand for my repairs. They said it was discretionary but I don’t believe they did it because they were feeling generous. NorthLink Ferries may be a different company but the same laws will apply.

I believe that the conditions of carriage of the company operating the ferry contains a jurisdictional clause which provides that the law of Scotland applies. I concur with Pausim that the ferry owner will not be able to simply exclude all liability for damage where they have been negligent.

IIRC because it was bad weather that caused the ship to roll, it’s unlikely that the ferry operator would have any liability. Best bet would be against the haulier who did not adequately secure the crusher to the trailer.

 

[bigtwin]

Best bet would be against the haulier who did not adequately secure the crusher to the trailer.

This is where liability lies.

Ian

 

[Pausim]

IIRC because it was bad weather that caused the ship to roll, it’s unlikely that the ferry operator would have any liability. Best bet would be against the haulier who did not adequately secure the crusher to the trailer.

There are an awful lot of unanswered questions but I still think that either the haulier, driver or ferry company could easily be held liable if they were negligent. Did the ferry set sail into known bad weather, unlikely to be caught out on a short run in familiar waters. Did they warn drivers of a rough crossing and tell them to make sure their loads were secure? Who knows but you can’t write out liability for negligence simply by saying you are not responsible for damage. If it was freak unforeseen conditions they might have a defence.

 

[LaurenceM]

Only sailed out of Newcastle once. It was a frustrating day; had to leave Kirkcaldy earlier than if I’d been catching either Hull ferries, and sailed past The Wash at about the same time as we’d be coming out the lock at Hull. Didn’t get in to Europort any earlier either, not that that make much difference as we were usually back on the quay at Masshaven by early afternoon. I think the only saving was diesel, but the fare was higher.







IIRC because it was bad weather that caused the ship to roll, it’s unlikely that the ferry operator would have any liability. Best bet would be against the haulier who did not adequately secure the crusher to the trailer.

Interesting.. I’ll bear in mind

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ingwe]

As Pausim says, there remain a lot of unknowns. To secure the trailer adequately but not its load may well be the fault of the trailer owner but that of itself, does not in my view mean that there was no duty of care by the ferry owners to ensure that the load was securely fixed when it was reasonably foreseeable that the load could shift in even fairly rough conditions. If the ferry company were sued, I’d expect them to join in the trailer owner for a contribution. At least in English law. But it’s Scots law that has the jurisdiction.

 

[Scottish Scrutineer]

Interesting.. I’ll bear in mind

Of course leisure travel has different priorities as compared to commercial haulage. I’m still hopeful that a ferry will restart between Rosyth and Europe. Last set or rumours were sailings to Dunkirk.

 

[Gellyneck]

It's been a long time since I was involved in "Maritime Regulations" and I believe these have changed after the Estonian ferry disaster however in relation to the shifting of this load there is probably joint and several liability in that the vehicle operator is responsible for ensuring their load was in an appropriate condition to be loaded and transported by the ferry and the ferry operator is required to check this.

Whether this happens or not ????? however I did have a load rejected for load because one of the twist locks holding a 40' container onto a mafi trailer was broken. DFDS Immingham from memory.

 

[Antl]

The exact circumstances of what happened appear to be unknown.

Did the crusher come off the trailer and cause the list, or did the ship roll/list and cause the crusher to come off the trailer?

When securing the crusher what consideration was giving to the ship rolling, what are the limits that the chains have to resist?

Whatever the circumstances it will be a tangled web for the insurers to resolve.

 

[SpeedyDux]

Many years ago we had a pretty rough crossing to France. Can’t remember which crossing, but I think from Portsmouth. Found out that the ferry before us cars had shifted and damage resulted.

My FIL had his Saab written off in similar circumstances.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}