(1979)1979 November 17 [DEMETRIADES, J.] ANGEL1S SAWA, Plaintiff, v. S. CH. IEROPOULOS CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER, Defendants. (Admiralty Action No. 77/75). Negligence—Loading of ship—Injury to stevedorefrom hook of sling which sprangfree whilst being raised—Hook fastened by plaintiff himself who tested it to see whether properly secured—Plaintiff solely to blamefor the accident—Absence of person giving signal for raising of load in no way contributed to the accident. 5 Ship—Loading of ship—Injury to stevedore employed on quay— Stevedore the employee of the shipper and not of the carrier— Action against carrier dismissed. The plaintiff, a stevedore, was injured whilst employed in the loading of pallets containing boxes of citrus fruit on the ship 10 "UNKLRMARK". His duty was, with the help of another stevedore, to hook on the pallet the sling of the winch that was to lift the pallet into the holds of the ship. After the sling was fastened on the pallet and whilst being raised on the ship one of the hooks sprang free and injured the plaintiff on the mouth. 15 Tv/o stevedores were employed to hook the sling on the pallet. One would fix two of the books of the sling and the other the other two. After fixing the hooks, a person—referred to as the "Koumandos"—would shout out "vira", which was the signal for the winch operator to raise the load. The operator of the 20 winch, which WE?Sfixed on the ship and was electrically operated, would lift the pallet slightly above the ground to test whether the sling had been properly hooked and once he found that the winch wires had taken the full strain, he would lift it onto the ship. The hook that hit plaintiff was one of the two hooks that he 604 25 1 CL.R. 5 Saira τ. leropook» Co. himself hadfitted into one of the holes of the pallet and had tested them to find out whether they were secured. Though it was usual for a "Koumandos" to direct the lifting operation, there was no such person present at the time the accident occurred and "vira" was shouted by somebody else. Inanactionfor damagesfor personalinjuriesagainst defendants 2, the ownersof the said ship and aguinstdefendants 1,their agents: 20 Held, thatconsidering that the plaintiff was theperson whose duty was to see that the sling hooks on his side were properly fastened in thepallet,thatthehook that sprang free and injured the plaintiff had already been tested by him to see if it was properly secured and that the winch operator before startingto lift theload, saw theplaintiff move from thepallet onto another one—which proves thattheplaintiff had already satisfied himself that thehookshad beensecurely fastened—the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of theplaintiff himself who is solely to blame for it and the absence of the"koumandos" in no way contributed totiie accident,norhad itanything to dowith what caused it; and that,accordingly, theactionmust be dismissed. 25 Held, further, that the action against defendants 2 must fail for thereason thatthe plaintiff was theemployee of the shipper of the pallets and not of the carrier, defendants 2, because he was employed intheloading process thattook placeonthe quay. Actiondismissed with costs. 10 15 30 Admiralty Action. Admiralty action for specia! and general damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff whilst employed in the loading of cargo on the ship "UNKERMARK". St. Kittis, for the plaintiff. St. McBride, for the defendants. Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADCS J. read the following judgment. This is an action by which theplaintiff claims special and general damages 35 for injuries, loss and damage he suffered whilst employed in the loading of cargo on the ship "UNKERMARK" which was, at the material time, lying in the port of Limassol. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel informed the Court 605- Demetriades J. Sarra τ. leropook»Co. (1S79) that the special and general damages to which the plaintiff would be entitled, on a full liability basis, had been agreed at £750.—. The only issue that remains for theCourt to decide is, thus, that of liability. The facts of the case are in brief as follows: In the morning 5 of the 17th February, 1975 the plaintiff, a stevedore, was employed in the loading on the ship "UNKERMARK" of pallets which contained boxes of citrus fruit. His duty was, with the help of another stevedore, to hook on the pallet the sling of thewinch thatwas to lift thepallet into theholds of the 10 ship. After the sling was fastened on the pallet and whilst being raised on the ship by P.W.I Yiannos Angeli, one of the hooks sprang free and injured the plaintiff on the mouth. It is now the case for the plaintiff that both defendants are liable for the injuries and the consequential loss he suffered. The 2nd defendants were the owners of the ship and the 1st defendants their agents. 15 Before proceeding to examine the evidence as to how the accident occurred, Iconsider it pertinentto say a few words how the process of the loading of the cargo in question was being 20 carried o u t This process was given to the Court by P.W.I Angeli, who is a foreman stevedore, and it is as follows: Two stevedores were employed to hook the sling on the pallet which was on a lorry. One of the stevedores stood on top of the pallet and the other on the quay and their duty was to fix 25 the four hooks of the sling into the four rings or holes that were at the four corners of the pallet. One of the stevedores would fix two of the hooks of the sling and the other the other two. After fixing the hooks, a person—who has been referred to as the "koumandos"—would thenshoutout"vira" whichwas 30 the signal for thewinch operatortoraise theload. Theoperator of the winch, which was fixed on the ship and was electrically operated, would then press a button,lift thepallet slightly above .the ground to test whether the sling had been properly hooked and once he found that the winch wires had taken the full 35 strain, he would lift it onto the ship. The plaintiff, who is P.W.2, told the Court that after he had hooked the hooks in the two holes of the pallet, he pulled them strongly to test if they were secured and the hooks did not slip from the holes. This, he said, was the only way of making 40 sure that the sling was properly hooked on the pallet The 606 1 CXJL Sww v.Inopouto Co. Drmliladu J. plaintiff went on to say that one of bis companions, whowas standing nearby, then called out "vira", the operator of the winch started lifting the pallet and it was then that one of the hookssprangfreeandhithim. Thehookthathithim,hesaid, 5 wasone of thetwohooksthat hehimselffittedintoone of the holes of the pallet Costas Kyriacou,P.W.3,wasthestevedore whowasworking withtheplaintiffandwhofixedtheothertwohooksofthesling. He gave thisversion asto how theaccident occurred: "When 10 theslingwaslowered, Ifixed thetwohookswhichwereonmy sideof thepallet Isawtheplaintiff bentdowninorderto fix the hooks in the holes that were on the pallet I could see the holes on my side but Icould not see well the holes which were on the side of the plaintiff. Whilst the plaintiff was 15 bending down fixing the hooks, I heard somebody should Vira' and the pallet was lifted about 3 inches. Inmmediately then the pallet started being lifted at a faster speed and one of the hooks that were on the side of the plaintiff got loose and hit him". 20 In cross-examination this witness said that the persons who usuallytell thewinchmanto lift thepalletaretheworkerswho hook the sling on the pallet and that after a stevedore hooks the pallet on the"sling, he pulls away. In this particular occasion, this witness said, "vira" was shouted bysomebody 25 whilsthewasstillinabendingpositionandbeforehehadtime tomoveawayfromthepallet. Hedeniedthathewastheperson who shouted *Vira". This witnesscontradicted the allegation of theplaintiff thattherewereotherstevedores standingnearby and that they called "vira", in that he denied thatanyother 30 person was present there besides the plaintiff and himself. YiannosAngeli,P.W.I,saidthatfromwherehewas,hecould see the two stevedores, i.e. the plaintiff and the other man, fixing the hooks of the sling in the rings; that whilst he was waitingfortheplaintiff andtheothermantohook theslinghe 35 heard somebody shout "vira'*,and that though itisusualfor a "koumandos"to direct the lifting operation,therewasnosuch person present at the time the accident occurred. However, liesaid,fromwherehewashecouldseeeverythingwellandthe "koumandos*"could not have assisted him betterinthelifting 607 Demetriades J. Sarra v. Ieropoolos Co.
(1979)of the pallet. Angeli further said that the person who has to make sure that none of the hooks will spring free is the man who in fact fits them into the rings of the pallet. This witness also said that when he pressed the button of the winch to test if the sling was properly hooked, the plaintiff had already moved away from the pallet onto another one. 5 Comparing now the evidence of the plaintiff with that of his witnessKyriacou, P.W.3,I find that the evidence of the latter does not in any way support the version of the plaintiff as to how the accident occurred. I further find that the person who 10 gave thesignalto P.W.I Angeli to lift the pallet must havebeen either the plaintiff or P.W.3 since, according to the evidence of P.W.3, there was nobody else nearby. There is no doubt in my mind that P.W.3 came to Court to help his comrade, though unsuccessfully. Considering now that the plaintiff was the person whose duty was to see that the sling hooks on his side were properly fastened inthepallet, that thehook that sprangfree and injured the plaintiff had already been tested by him to see if it was properly secured, and that Angeli, P.W.I, before he started 20 lifting the load saw the plaintiff move from the pallet onto another one—which proves to methat theplaintiff had already satisfied himself that the hooks had been securely fastened—I findthat the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the plaintiff himself and that he is solely to blame for it The 25 absence of the "koumandos" in no way contributed to the accident nor had it anything to do with what caused it There is one other reason why this action must fail. According to the evidence of D.W.I Giorkadjis, which is supported bytheevidenceofP.W.I Angeli, theplaintiff, because 30 he was employed in the loading process that took place on the quay, was the employee of the shipper of the pallets and not of the carrier, that isto say the2nd defendant. In theabsence of any evidence that the accident was caused as a result of the negligence of the winch operator, the plaintiff's claim should 35 fail. Evidence was adduced that after this accident and since the Port Authority took over the management of the Port of Limassol, the system of loading changed; that pallets are now 608 15 1 CXJL Sana τ.IerapotdosCo. DemetriadcsJ. unloaded on the lorries by forklifts onto the quay and that the stevedores stand, whilst hooking the hooks of the sling on the pallet, on the quay. In view of my finding, however, that the plaintiff was solely to blame for the accident, I find that this change in thesystem of work has nothingto do with thepresent case and does not help the plaintiff. In the circumstances, I dismiss the action with costs. Action dismissed with costs. <! •I· ,/ •'f , '-,1 ' 609 Ϊ