clr/1982/1982_1_99.pdf

(1982)The plaintiff was one of three porters, in the employment of defendants 1, who was engaged on the quay in the loading of lorries on[the ship "Ayia Sophia" which belonged to defendants

1. Whilst working on the quay he was asked by his foreman to go on board the ship to start the stalled engine 5 of one of the lorries. When on board the ship he stepped on the wooden hatch-covers, a plank gave way and he fel! into the hold of the ship and was injured. The same plank had, also, given way before the accident when the Chief Officer of the ship stepped thereonand he was 10 savedfromtailing bytheforeman ofdefendants
2. Thisforeman then asked the Chief Officer of the ship to fix the planks so that there would be no similar occurrence in respect of other persons stepping thereon and the Chief Officer gave orders to the sailors to fix them. The sailors then came along and did 15 soand somepersons walked overthemthereafter until theplank moved from position and the plaintiff fell into the hold. As a result of the accident the plaintiff, who at the time of the accident was 33years of age and married with two children sustained a severe craniocerebral injury with brain damage and 20 remained unconscious for six days. The brain damage resulted in a spastic left hemiparesis and somepersonality and speech changes. He resumed his previous work 4V2 months alter the accident but he was having difficulties in his overall performance. He was complaining of episodes of headaches 25 which were sometimes associated with dizziness, easy fatigue, lack of concentration and anxiety. His wife stated that her husband's sexual performance was very much reduced. He was driving a car although he has had two accidents. The possibility of his developing post-traumatic epilepsy was negli- 30 gible. Since the accident he has been irritable and unable to control himselfwhen losinghistemper. Hewasagood swimmer and used to p'ay football before the accident, but since then he stopped playing lootball and he did not swim beyond the depthof theseawherehecould stand. Inanactionfor damages 35 against defendants 1,hisemployers, and defendants 2, the shipowners, defendants 1 contended (a) That the hatch-covers through which the plaintiff fell and injured himself formed part of the premises of a party other than themselves, namely defendarts 2, as against whom he was an invitee once he came on 49 100 1 CX.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Lazarou v. Ieropoulos board to start the stalled engine and the accident occurred when he stepped on the wooden hatch-covers which for some reason parted and he fell through them, (b) That the foreman of defendants 1, on noticing the incident whereby the Chief Officer fell through the same hatch-covers, acted as a prudent supervisor of the stevedores and porters and did what was proper for him to do in the circumstances, that is to say, he asked the persons who had the control of the ship and who had the right to do so, to put the matter right; (c) That it was not negligence on the part of anyone working on a ship to rely upon the owner or master or Officer in Charge of such ship who has to see that his premises are safe. Held,

(1)that the question whether an employer has negligently failed to perform his duty to take reasonable care for the safety of his men depends on the circumstances of each case; that thisduty existsthroughout thecourseof theiremployment and it does not come to an end because theworkmen are sent to work at premises which do not belong to the employer; that stevedores are in general entitled to rely upon the shipowners for safety, subject of course to the situation where if there are apparent indications which such stevedore-employer observes or ought to observe that the structure is defective, he owes a duty to take reasonable measures for the protection of his men; that once there were apparent indications which they observed, that the structure was defective, they did not discharge the duty they owed by taking reasonable care for the protection of the plaintiff; that, therefore, defendants 1 were liable in damages to the plaintiff as they were negligent through the failure of their foreman to see that the hatch-covers were properly taken care of by the sailors after they gave way and the Chief Officer fell through them. Held,further, that the foreman could not be held to have discharged his duty towards the plaintiff by merely asking the ship-owner's sailors to put the hatch-covers right without inspecting them thereafter and making sure that they were indeed put right and safe for the employees to step on them.

(2)Thatdefendants 2,the ship-owners, as occupiers are liable in damages to the plaintiff as an invitee on the ground that the insecure placing of the hatch-covers created an unusual danger for the plaintiff, the risk of which he could not appreciate and 1G1 Lazarou v. Ieropoulos

(1982)the proper inference in the circumstances is that their collapse was created by the agents or servants of the occupiers and that was a danger of which they knew.

(3)That considering the circumstances of this case liability between the two defendants will be apportioned as being 20% on defendants 1, the employers, and 80% on defendants 2, the ship-owners, there having been served on defendants 2 by defendants 1 a third party notice under section 64 of the Civil Wrongs Law, Cap. 148 (see Smith v. Austin Lifts Ltd., and Others [1959] 1 All E.R. 81). 5 10

(4)That the pain and suffering, the loss of amenities of life are a loss of a good thing in itself; that the resulting permanent incapacity of the plaintiff, under which heading there is included his decreased libido, the non enjoyment of certain sports and his irritability, and the possibility of future loss of earnings, 15 though this latter item appears from the circumstances to be. negligible, have to be made good by a sum of money which should be regarded as giving reasonable compensation, and can be assessed as a lump sum once and for all, both for the loss that has accrued before the trial and for any prospective losses; 20 in the circumstances of this case a global sum of £2,000.- will be a fair and reasonable amount to be awarded to the plaintiff as general damages.

(5)That in assessing general damages the incident of income tax has been taken into consideration but with regard to the 25 special damages which have to be the net earnings lost after deduction of tax, this is'not an easy task to decide by merely taking judicial notice of the tax payable in respect of a given income at the material time, particularly so in view of the meagre material before this Court, which renders its task as a tax 30 assessor a very speculative one; and that, therefore, effect will be given to this legal position by deducting from the agreed sum of the total emoluments of £1,340.- the roughly estimated amount of £100.- and so the total figure for special damages in this case will be £1,390- after adding the amount of £150 35 for medical expenses. Judgment for plaintiff against both defendants for £3,390.Cases referred to: Rose v. Ford [1937] 3 All E.R. 359 at p. 379; 102 4Q 1 C.L.R. 5 Lazarou τ. leropouloi BritishTransport Commission v. Gourley [1955] 3 All E.R. 796; Coppinv. Butlers Wharf Ltd. [1952] 2 Lloyds Rep. 307; Thomsonv. Cremin& Others[1953] 2 All E.R. 1185; GeneralCleaningContractors Ltd. v. Christmas [1952] 2 All E.R. 1110; M'Quilterv. Goulandris BrosLtd. 1951 SLT (Notes 75); Smith v. y4«i/in Ζ,ί/ttLtd. andOthers [1959] 1All E.R.

1. Admiralty Action. Admiralty action for special and general damages in respect 10 of injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of an accideat in the course of his employmenl with the defendants on board the ship "Ayia Sophia". P. Pavlou, for the plaintiff. St. McBride, for defendants
2. 15 No appearance for defendants
3. Cur. adv. vult. A. Loizou'j. read the following judgment. The plaintiff's claim in these proceedings is for special and general damages for the personal injuries and the damage he suffered as a result 20 of an accident which happened whilst he was in the service of defendants 1 on or about the 15th September, 1976, on board the ship "AYIA SOPHIA" then lying in the port of Limassol and belonging to defendants 2, and which accident is alleged to have been caused by the negligence and/or breach of the 25 statutory duties of both defendants and/or either of themand/ or theirservants and agents and/orby thebieach of thecontract of his employment with defendants
4. 30 35 T\\zfacts of thecase as relatedby Demetris Phylactou(P.W.2) with regard to the cause of the accident have been accepted as correcl by a statement made to that effect by counsel for defendants 1andwhich renderedthe hearing of further evidence on these issues unnecessary. The plaintiff was one of three porters engaged on th? quay with thaloading of lorries and othermachinery on the aforesaid ship. The lorries were brought to the quay, the'r engines were started and it was part of the duties of the plaintiff to drive them in a position below the winch, to tie them with hooks so that they would be lifted by the winches of the ship and be 103 Λ. Loizou J. Lazarou v. Ieropoulos (19S2) lowered into the hold. Their engines were kept running and it has been explained that the reason for that was that when the lorries were lowered into the hold they would be driven into the appropriate position and then tied up by the sailors of the ship. When oneof the lorries was lowered intothehold 5 its engine stopped, and the foreman Andreas Pratsis (P.W.4) who was with sev.*n stevedores on board the said ship, asked that the master key with which they were starting the engines, should be sent up fiom thequay, which was done; but as the stevedores could not start the engine of the lorry in question, 10 Pratsis asked that one of the quay porters went on board the ship ard started the engine himself. In compliance with these instructions the plaintiff went on board and proceeded towards the hold. Hestepped on a hatchcovsr,a plankgaveway and hefell into the second hold and suffered the injuries to which 15 Ishall refer laterinthisjudgment whendealing with thequestion of damages. This plank was in such a position in relation to the direction that the plaintiff was to proceed that he had to step on it in order to pass and go near the stevedores where he had been summoned by Pratsis to go. 20 Before this incident,ihe Chief Officer of the ship stepped on the same plank which gave way and he was saved from falling into the hold by his being timely grasped by Pratsis. Pratsis thenasked theChief Officer tofixtheplanks sothattherewould bs no similar occurrence in respect of other persons stepping 25 thereon and the Chief Olficer gave orders to the sailors to fix them. Thesailors thencamealonganddidsoandsomepersons walked over themthereafter untiltheplankmovedfrom position and the plaintiff fell into the hold. It may be mentionedhere that thestevedores in thehold and 30 the quay porters, as well as Andreas Pratsis, theforeman, were all employed by defendants
5. Both groups of labourers were under the direction and orders of this foreman as they were all employed by the same employei. On this point reference may be made to the circumstances 35 of theemployment of all these labourers. According to Eraclis Nicolaides (P.W.I), Officer in charge for the Port Workers Branch attheLabour Office at thePortof Limassol, defendants 104 1 C.L.R. Lazarou v. Ieropoulos A. Loizou J. 1 applied for the allocation of serven stevedores, three quay porters and a foreman to them for loading cargo on the ship "AYIA SOPHIA". The employment of port workers is regulated by the Port 5 Workers (Regulation of Employment) Law, Cap. 184, as amended, and the Regulations made under section 5 thereof, which are to be found in a Schedule to the said law. (Forthe amendments thereof and the orders made thereunderseeIndex totheSubsidiary Legislation oftheRepublicof Cyprus,prepared 10 by the Revision and Consolidation of the Cyprus Legislation Service 1977, page 276). Under these provisions an employer who places a request for the allocation to him of poit workers must take whoever is given to him by the Labour Office as stevedores and porters are allocated by a rotation system and 15 thereis nochoicefor theapplicant. Inrespecl of theforeman, however, the employer can choose,one from List Ά ' of steve­ dores as it has been in this case the choice of Andreas Pratsis by defendants 1who have been selecting him for employment with them since
6. 20 Under regulation 12: 25 "If a port worker contravenes or fails to comply with any provisions of these Regulations or misconducts himself in thecourse of or in connectionwith his work then, with­ out prejudice to any other liability he may incur under these Regulations or any other Law, the Board may(a) warn him; or (b) suspend him from work for a period not exceeding threemonthsandsuspend hisregistration card accord­ ingly; or 30 (c) give himfifteendays noticeof cancellation of registra­ tion; or (d) cancel his registration and registration card forth­ with". I donot intendto enterintoan analysis of thecircumstances 35 under which a port worker so engaged can be dismissed, but as stated by this witness, aforeman may dismiss such a worker following a notice given to him and there exists a Disciplinary 105 A. Loizou J. Lazaroa v. Ieropoulos

(1982)Committee which is composed of trade union representatives and representatives of the employers under the Chairmanship of the Port Master which hears complaints from employers and adjudicates upon them. This statutory regulation, however, of the employment of 5 port workers does not, in my view, take away the relationship in law of master and servant belween employer and employee. And this is also apparent from regulation 12 hereinabove set out, whereby the sanctions provided in respect of misconduct by a port worker in the course of or in connection with his 10 woik is without prejudice to any other liability incurredunder those regulations or any other law. The whole philosophy oftheaforesaid law andtheregulations baingtoregulateemploy­ ment for the purposes set out in section 3 of the law andnot to change the relationship of master and servant between 15 employers and port workers. Theplaintiff, accordingtotheLabour Office recoids,resumed work on the 29th January, 1977, this time as stevedore in List Ά ' which carries greater remuneration than the post he held before the accident. Although at first hi could not fully carry 20 out his work as a stevedore, y?t his remunerationwas full, he was paid as such as his colleagues helped him along. The facts relevant to ths issue of damages and the injuries received by the plaintiff as well as the treatment received and hisfinalconditiongiven by anumber of witnesses andfrom the 25 medical reports which have been produced with the consent of the parties as exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are as follows:Theplaintiff, was at thetime of Ihe accident 33years of age, marri-.d with iwo children, the eldest now being 15 and the youngest 11 years of age. The injuries he sustained, the treat- 30 ment he received and his condition as on the 21st September 1977,(almost ayear after theaccident)areset out inthereport, exhibit 1, of Dr. Christodoulides,atihe Neurogical Department at ths Nicosia General Hospital. It leads as follows: "This man was admitted to Limassol Hospital in the 35 morning of 15.9.1976 b^ing unconscious following a fall from height while as work; as his condition deteriorated he wa; transferred to the Neurosurgical Ward of Nicosia General Hospital on 17.9.1976. 106 1 C.L.R. 5 10 Lazarou τ. Ieropoulos A. Loizou J. On admission to Nicosia General Hospital Mr.Lazarou was unconscious and restless, respording to pain by loca­ lising with his right hand, he had a large haematoma on his left frontotemporal region, a left black eye, scratches and bruises over his right arm, a left sided hemipaitsis and a positive babinski sign bilaterally. An echoencephalogiam which was performed showed evidence of a right sided lesion and a right carotid angio­ graphy carried out as an emergency showed evidence of cerebral oedemasothatnosurgical interventionwasneeded and the patient was treated conservatively. Mr. Lazarou regained consciousness on 20.9.1976 but was restless, drowzy, confused and disorientated in time and place being incontinent of urine. 15 20 25 30 His condition improved gradually so that on 24.9.1976 although confused at times he was able to carry out a reasonable conversation and he was transferred back to Limassol Hospital on the same day. Since his discharge from Limassol Hospital Mr.Lazarou was followed up as an out-patient in the Neurosurgical department of Nicosia GeneralHospital being complaining of episodes of headaches sometimes associated with dizzi­ ness, easy fatigue, lack of concentration and anxiety; personality changes were noted by his wife and friends; she also stated that her husband's sexual performance was very much reduced. On his last visit in May, 1977 Mr. Lazarou's complaints were as above on an examination he itill had minimal left sided hemiparesis; the changes of personality were obvious. The electroencephalograms which were performed when Mr. Lazarou was an in-palient and also an outpatient were abnormal and showed thai a degree of brain damage took place. 35 Conclusion: Mr. Lazarou sustained a severe head injury when he fill from height on 15.9.1976 and his life was at risk; his present complaints are due to brain con107 Λ. Loizou J. Lazarou v. Ieropoulos

(1982)tusions for which the accident is entirely responsible and although expected to clear up will last for long. Because of Mr. Lasarou's personality changes and the reduce in his sexual performance he must be examined and be under the care of a Psychiatrist; a Psychologist's 5 opinion will bs of great help. InmyopinionduetothecerebralcontusionsMr.Lazarou is carrying 10% risk of post-traumatic ep'lepsy". Dr. Messis after taking the history of the patient,upon exa­ mination, found that he wat "overtalkative and giandiose 10 with some scanning speech. There was also a mild left facial weak less and left spastic hemiparesis. A mild left hypalgesia was also present. The E.E.G. was mildly abnormal. Hi» condition improved with treatment and time and when last seen on 17.3.1977 he was working, inspite of persisting mild 15 spastic weakness on the left, the above mentioned speech and personality difficulties. Conclusion: This patient sustained a severe craniocersbial trauma with brain damage lhat resulted in a spastic left hemiparesis and some personality and speech changes. Little further improvement is expected. There is 20 still 5-7 percent chance of developing post traumatic epilepsy". (Exhibit 2.) The last report of Dr. Messis, exhibit 3, dated the 6th December 1980, describes the condition of the plaintiff a> follows: "The above namod was .xamined by me two more limes since my last report. The last one on 3.11.1980. His conditionhas shown some improvement and henow reports driving a car although he has had two accidents. He also continues to work at the port although appaicrJy 30 he has been having difficulties in his overall performance. Hecontiauesto have problems in hisrelationswithother people fighting and being argumentative. This happens both at work and at home. His neurological condition is unchanged and he keeps 35 complaining of decreased libido, forgetfulness and diso­ rientation." 108 25 C.L.R. Lazarou v. Ieropoulos A. Loizou J. Dr. Messisgave evidence and confirmed hisaforesaid findings andconclusions on oath under cross-examination. With regard to the qu-jstion of epilepsy he said that anyone who sustains a blow or damage to the head and has as a result an injury to 5 thebrain must b^medically considered assusceptible to epilepsy in some future date. But the possibility of the plaintiff developingpost-traumatic epilepsy now or in the future is negligible. Hewas beingdescribed asbeing,now since the accident irritable and unable to control himself when he loses his temper, and 10 that he was also a good swimmer and that he used to play football before the accident, but since then he stopped playing football and he does not swim beyond the depth of the sea where he can stand. The opinions of the two doctors, as hereinabove set out 15 supplement each other and give a complete picture of the condition of the plaintiff from the moment he was injured to the present date. The pain and suffering, the loss of amen-ties of life, which as expressed in ihe speech of Lord Roche in Rose v. Ford[1937] 3 All E.R. 359 at 379 are " a loss of a 20 good thing in itself". The resulting permanent incapacity of the plaintiff, under which heading I include his decreased libido, the nonenjoyment of certain sports and his irritability, and the possibility of future loss of earnings, though this latter item appears from the circumslances to be negligible, have to be 25 made good by a sum of money which should be regarded as giving reasonable compensation, can be assessed as a lump sum once and for all, both for the loss that has accrued before the 'rial and for any prospective losses. in thecircumstances ofthiscase Ihavecome tothe conclusion 30 that the global sum of £2,000.- will be a fair and reasonable amount to be awarded to the plaintiff as general damages. The special damages have been somehow agreed by the parties as follows: 35 (a) £150.- for medical expenses including hospital fs~s, medicines and travelling; (b) loss of earnings for the period for which the plaintiff was out of work, that is four and a half months, but this is where I have to make a comment about it. A statement was made bycounselfor theplaintiff and accepted 109 A. Loizou J. Lazarou v. leropoutos

(1982)by that of defendants 1, "that had the plaintiff worked for the period for which he claimsto have been out of work on account of this accident, he would have received emoluments to the amount of £1,340.-." This agreed statement, however, does not simplify matters and cannot be held to be all that helpful 5 to me inasmuch as counsel for defendants 1, has argued that income-tax that would have normally be paid on this amount should be deducted and thai the incident of taxation has to be taken into account in assessing the general damages; he gave as an authority for this proposition the case of the British 10 Transport Commissionv. Gourley[1955] 3All E.R. p.796,which indeed has been consistently followed in Cyprus. Asfar as the assessment of the general damages is concerned, no doubt this is one of the matters that have been taken into consideration, but with regard to the special damages, which 15 have to be the net earnings lost after deduction of tax, I do not think that this is an easy task to decideby merely taking judicial notice of the tax payable in respect of a given income ai the material time, particularly so in view of the meagre material before me,whichrenders mytask as a tax-assessor a very ipecu- 20 tive one. I shall therefore give effect to this legal position by deducting from the agreed sum of total emoluments of £1,340.- the roughly estimated amount of £100.- and so the total figure for special damages in this case is £1,390.-. The total amount therefore, to which the plaintiff is entitled by 25 way of special and general damages on a full liability basis is £3 390.-. 1 turn now to the issue of liability. It is the case for defendants 1that the hatch-covers through which the plaintiff fell and injured himself formed part of ihe 30 premises of a party other than themselves, namely defendants 2, as against whom he was an invitee once he came on board 1o start the stalled engine and ihu accident occurred when he stepped on the wooden hatch-covers which for some reason parted and he fell ihrough them. 35 It was argued that the foreman of defendants 1 on noticing the incident whereby the Chief Officer fell through the same hatch-covers acted as a prudent supervisor of the stevedores and porcersand didwhat was proper for him todo inthe circum110 1 CL.R. Lazarou v. Ieropoulos A. Loizou J. stances,that isto say,heaskedthepersonswhohadthecontrol of the ship and who had the right to do so, to put the matter right,andforsometimeafterthatthehatch-coverswereperfectly suitable and serviceable for thepurposethey were placedthere, 5 andtherewasnothinginthe evidencethat prior to the accident defendants 1,wereawarethat the hatch-covers would giveway once more. Moreover, the system of work employed on that daybydefendants 1 wastheordinary oneandtherewasnothing to suggest thai defendants 1 were negligent by employing a 10 system other than the ordinary one in the circumstances. If anyonewasto blameweredefendants 2,the owners of the ship who had to providesafe premises and as an authority for this proposition 1have been «eferred to the case of Coppin v. ButlersWharfLtd.[1952] 2 Lloyd'sRep.p.307. In this case it 15 was held with regard to a stevedore who was injured when his foot droppedinto a holeinaceiling—floor—concealed bystraw, that there was no omission by dafendants, his employers, to take any reasonable precautions, which they should reasonably be expected to take in the circumstances; that the removal of 20 the straw was within the normal sphere of operations of the plaintiff himself and he, having made no complaint or request, defendants werenot required to devise somespecial system for the particular occasion and that, theiefore, the plaintiff's claim failed. 25 30 35 Mr. Justice Pearson, at p. 310, had this to say: "The first question I have to consider is whether any liability hasbeenestablished inthiscase,whether it isproved that this accident happened by reason of some negligence onthepart ofthedefendants; that istosay,thatthey faikd totakereasonablecaretosecurethesafety ofthisworkman at hisworkfor them, and that suchfailure caused theaccident. I do not think it can now besuggested that the plaintiff has, on the evidence, any plausible argument under par. 4(a) of his statement of claim, which reads in these terms: Failure to take any orproper careto seethat the floor of the said hold was safe for the plaintiff's work or totakeanyorproperstepstowarnorotherwise protect 111 A. Loizou J. Lazarou v. Ieropoulos

(1982)the plaintiff against dangers owing to the presence of holes in the said floor. But the other way in which the plaintiff's case was put, and I think on the evidence it became substantially the only way in which it could be put, was this, that it is the 5 duty of the defendants to provide a safe system of working for the employees". And then he went on to say with regard to the argument that the straw ought to have been removed, the following at p.311: "It depends, to a large extent, on the evidence as to what 10 the normal practice is, because, of course, the question whether somebody has taken reasonable care or not must depend to a considerable extent on whether hehas followed the usual course or he has not, whether he has taken all such precautions as the normal employer does take. That 15 is an important, though not necessarily decisive, consideration in determining whether reasonable care has been taken or not". And further at p. 311 he said: "Altogether, Ithink itisnot areasonable viewof thematter. 20 1 think that the reasonable view of the matter was that this hole, concealed with the large quamity of straw which was on the floor, was a very dangerous object, a dangerous trap. It was a concealed danger, bur that is ths responsibility of the owners of the ship. It wa^ quite plainly, as a 25 matter of common s^nse, their fault that somehow or other this hole had been created in the floor, and instead of putting that right, repairing the hole in some way before ihey loaded that cargo, they left the hole there. They put the straw on top of the hole and then they put the fruit 30 cargo on top of the straw and the hole. That was a most dangerous thing to do, but that is their responsibility and their liability, and I do not think, according to any reasonable view of this matter, that it could be held to be the responsibility of the defendants in any way here; nor do 35 I think that it has been proved that there was any defect in the provision of a safe system of work, or that any pre112 1 C.L.R. Lazarou v. Ieropoulos A. Loizou J. caution which ought to ha\e been taken by the defendants was omitted by them". Then he mentioned the cases referred to by counsel and concluded by saying thai his view of the matter was that: 5 "It depends on a finding of fact, which is a matter in the end of simple common sense, and I think, as I have said, that there was no omission by the defendants to take any reasonable precautions which they could reasonably have been expected to take in these circumstances". 10 Reference was also made to the case of Thomson v. Cremin & Others [1953] 3 All E.R., p. 1185. This was a case where the first respondent, Cremin, who was purruer in the action received a serious injury while employed by the second-named respondent as a stevedore-labourer in discharging bulk grain 15 from the hold of aship belonging to the appellant. It was held: 20 25 30 35 "(i) The appellan1 owed a duty to the fiist respondent as aninviteetotake easonablecare;tin duty of an invitor to an invitee was a duty personal to the invitor and, while he was not an insurer, he warranted that due care and skill to make the premises reasonably safe for the invitee had been exercised by himself, his servants or agents, or an independent contractor, he was not excused for a failure to perform that duty merely because he had entrusted performance of it to an independent contractor, however reputable and competent, nor by the fact that the Australian government had certified that the local regulations as to shifting boards ,had been complied with; and, therefore, ih^ appellant was liable to the first respondent Wilkinson v. Red, Ltd. [1941] 2 All E.R. 50, appioved. (ii) The shifting-boaid, including the shore, was part of the fittings of ths ship; the second respondents were on board for the special and limited purpo.e of unloading the cargo, and there was no duly on their part, in the absence of special circumstances of suspicion, to inspect the structuie of th; ship, whether permanent or temporary; there was no 113 A. Loizou J. Lazarou τ. Ieropoulos

(1982)evidence that th3 operation of discharging the cargo caused the shore to collapse; and, accordingly, no negligence on the part of the second respondents had been shown". It is clear from the aforesaid proposition that stevedores ara in general entitbd to rely upon theship owners for the safety of Ihiir men unless there are apparent indicationa which a stevedore observes or ought to obseive that the structure is defective, in which case he owes a duty to take reasonable mea­ sures for their protection. 5 10 Counsel for defendants 1 has further argued that it is not negligence on the part of anyone working on a ship to rely upon the owner or master, or Officer in Charge of such a ship who has to see tha'. his premises are safe as one may reasonably expect the master, etc., to comply with his legal obligations 15 which arise under the Docks Regulations (published in the Subsidiary Legislation of Cyprus, Vol. 1, p. 528), and in parti­ cular regulation 17, with which under regulation 3

(2), the owner, master or Officer in Charge of a ship has to comply, and which reads as follows: 20 "All fore and aft beams, and thwartship beams used for hatch covering and all hatch covering shall be maintained in good condition". 1need not really deal sjparalely, at this stage, with the argu­ ments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as they will inevi- 25 tably come upin thecoune of my conclusionswhich Τ am about to make in this judgment. On the evidunce before me I am satisfied that the plaintiff was an employe; of defendants 1. This is born out by the uncontradicted evidence of all witnesses who testified on this 30 issue and thereis nothingto suggest that defendants 1 employed the plaintiff in their capaciiy as agents for an undisclosed prin­ cipal. The question whether an employer has negligently failed to perform his duty to take leasonable care for the safety of his men depends on the circumstances of each case. This 35 duty exists throughout the course of their employment and it does not com? to an end because the workmen are sent to work at premises which do not belong to the employer. 114 1 C.L.R. Lazarou v. Ieropoulos A. Loizou J. In support of this proposition reference may be made to the case of General Cleaning Contractors Ltd.y v. Christmas [1952] 2 All E.R. 1110, and with regard to stevedores in particular to the case of Thomson v. Cremin (supra) to which reference has 5 already been made and in which the House of Lords have held that stevedores are in general entitled to rely upon the shipowners for safety, subject of course to the situation where if there ate apparent indications which such stevedore-employer observes or ought to observe that the structure is defective, 10 he owes a duty to take reasonable measures for the proiection of his men. Also inthe Scottish case of M' Quilter\. GoulandrisBros, Ltd., 1951 SLT(Notes) 75,"ship-repairers' men had to go along an unlighted deck, and one of them tripped over a ring-bolt, fell 15 into an uncovered hatchway, and was killed. The employers were held liable. Lord Guthrie said: 20 25 30 T h e fact that theworkhad tobecarriedout onthepremises of a third party did not absolve an employer from hh duty of exercisingreasonable care for the safety of his workmen. The duty must stillbefulfilled, although itsscope is circumscribed bythefact that theworkwasbeingdone on premises not within the possession and control of the employe*. As the structure of the premises is outwith his control, and any defects therein beyond his power to rectify, his care for his men could only be exercised within the limits impoied by those circumstances. But he was still under the duty of exercising reasonable care to safeguard them agains; dangeis which he should anticipate and which he had power to avert.'" As pertinently observed in Munkmarts Employer's Liability, 9th edition, p. 118 an important factor in this case was that lighting should have been provided. The first question therefore that has to be answered in Ihe present case is whether defendants 1 had exercised reasonable 35 care to safeguard the plaintiff against the dangers which they should anticipate and which they had powe* to ave.t or as otherwise put in the Cremin case (supra) whether once there were apparent indications which they indeed observed, that the structure was defective they discharged the duty they owed 40 by takingreasonable measures for the protection of the plaintiff. 115 A. Loizou J. Lazarou v. ieropoulos

(1982)The answer to this question is that defendants 1were liaole in damages to the plaintiff as they were negligent through the failure of their foreman to see that the hatch-covers were propeily taken care of by the sailors after they gave way ard the chief officer fell through them. Theforeman couldnot be held 5 to have discharged his duty towards the plaintiff by merely asking the ship-owners' sailors to put the hatch-covers right without inspecting them thereafter and making sure that they were indeed put right and safe for the employees to step on them. The obligation to inspect the structure of the ship 10 once there were special circumstances not of mere suspicion but of knowledge that the hatch-covers were not in good condition, can be seen to exist from what was said in the Cremin case (supra), as well as from the case of Smith v. Austin Lifts Ltd., and others [1959] 1All E.R. p. 81,which is also significant 15 in relation to the duty of defendants 2, the ship-owners, who as occupiers have to be held liable in damages to the plaintiff asaninviteeonthe groundthattheinsecureplacing ofthe hatchcovers created an unusual danger for the plaintiff, the risk of which he could not appreciate and the proper inference in the 20 circumstances is that their collapse was created by the agents or scrvan's of the occupiers and that was a danger of which they knew. This is the answer to the second question which has to be answered in Ihis case regarding the liability of defendants 2. Moreover, in the Smith case (supra), the apportionment 25 of liability between the employer and the occupier which was upheld on appeal by the House of Lords was 80% on the occupiersand 20% to theemployers. Considering thecircumstances of the present cass I will apportion the liability between the two defendants as being likewise 20% on defendants 1and 80% 30 on defendants 2, there having toen served on defendants 2 by defendants 1a third parfy notice under section 64of the Civil Wrongs Law, Cap. 148. In t h i result there will be judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants—in default of appearance in the case of d^fen- 35 dants No. 2—jointly and severally, for the sum of £3,390.with costs on that amount. Judgmentfor plaintif;against both defendants for the sum of £3,390 with costs. 116 40