My Car Is Stuck

[zippy]

well, got my car back last night - all in order, the Steam Packet were great - not their fault it broked

 

funny to see your car swing over the side and onto to the quay!

 

In a way its a pity, I had a nice new hire car only done about 4000 miles, compared to my 12 year car worth 400

 

Nice photos on the other thread - not my nice new car though

[AlexMcC]

Seacat is in service next week to help with pax, so the Ben can continue to carry freight.

 

Maybe they will just keep her like that for the time being, the Ben's refit is in one month anyway.

[Uni]

I thought you were going to say that it was stuck due to it being to low to the ground/plates/mats - I scrapped my car to shit getting it imported

[Tempus Fugit]

Seacat appears to be on course for Heysham, (106º, about tha same track as the Ben)

[zippy]

Got a letter today from the steam packet - they're giving a full refund on my ticket, so wooo the inconvenince was almost worth it.

I can now afford to go away in the summer..... I wonder if i'll be allowed to request the lower deck, lightining couldn't strike twice..... could it?

 

good one steam packet and nice apology too

[Tempus Fugit]

seacat did an extra heysham trip yesterday after doing the liverpool run, but seems to have a problem this morning only doing 20kt and a long trip to liverpool arriving after 12.00.

At least they have a few hours to look at it before the return trip

[Rog]

The shearing of the ram could not be foreseen and is no ones fault. A compensation claim is not applicable as there has been no negligence, and so any assistance from the Steam Packet would be seen as a goodwill payment.

 

Now THERE’S a sweeping generality!

 

Unless the terms of carriage expressly contain a get-out clause then a compensation claim most definitely WOULD be in order if any loss has been suffered, especially by a private individual.

[Amadeus]

 

The shearing of the ram could not be foreseen and is no ones fault. A compensation claim is not applicable as there has been no negligence, and so any assistance from the Steam Packet would be seen as a goodwill payment.

 

Now THERE’S a sweeping generality!

 

Unless the terms of carriage expressly contain a get-out clause then a compensation claim most definitely WOULD be in order if any loss has been suffered, especially by a private individual.

What about this one:

 

4. The Steam Packet accepts no responsibility for any delay or failure to perform obligations under the contract to the extent that the delay has been caused in whole or in part by Force Majeure. Additionally the Steam Packet does not undertake that any vessel will start or arrive on or at the advertised date and time. All sailings and schedules are subject to cancellation or variation without notice for any cause which the Steam Packet or Master reasonably considers justified. For full details on refunds please refer to the section entitled refunds.

[AlexMcC]

The whole thing has cost them hundreds of thousands it would seem...

 

A couple of bikes got damaged on thismornings D-L sailing, weather weather

[Rog]

 

The shearing of the ram could not be foreseen and is no ones fault. A compensation claim is not applicable as there has been no negligence, and so any assistance from the Steam Packet would be seen as a goodwill payment.

 

Now THERE’S a sweeping generality!

 

Unless the terms of carriage expressly contain a get-out clause then a compensation claim most definitely WOULD be in order if any loss has been suffered, especially by a private individual.

What about this one:

 

4. The Steam Packet accepts no responsibility for any delay or failure to perform obligations under the contract to the extent that the delay has been caused in whole or in part by Force Majeure. Additionally the Steam Packet does not undertake that any vessel will start or arrive on or at the advertised date and time. All sailings and schedules are subject to cancellation or variation without notice for any cause which the Steam Packet or Master reasonably considers justified. For full details on refunds please refer to the section entitled refunds.

 

The failure of a critical piece of the ramp doesn’t really constitute force majeure.

 

Force majeure is generally some thing or incident outside of the control of the goods or services being provided where the company has made ‘Best Efforts’ to provide the goods or services. Then there’s the question of what constitutes ‘Best Efforts’.

 

A regular inspection of critical components should be undertaken at appropriate intervals by a 'Competent Person or Authority' appointed by the company.

 

As a ‘Competent Operator’ the company should have previously to putting the goods or services onto the market established what were critical components and undertaken appropriate testing maybe in this case including ultrasonic crack detection equipment as is done in many other installations where large hydraulic rams are used.

 

If the failure is due to metal fatigue then there might be a defence that the designers of the ramp failed to consider the loads that the device would be subject to and so they might be liable.

 

As for “All sailings and schedules are subject to cancellation or variation without notice for any cause which the Steam Packet or Master reasonably considers justified”, that applies to the schedule, not to the service provided, i.e. the disembarkation of materials that constitutes something that is of the essence of the service provided by the company.

[Gladys]

Bit of a barrack room lawyer Rog? I think you will find the pertinent bit of this exclusion starts with "Additionally". From what has been posted the Steammie seem to have done more than they were contractually obliged to do. What additional loss has been incurred? Compensation only reimburses for loss. Carriers of freight will also have similar limitations for loss in their terms of carriage, probably also limited by adopting some industry standard terms and conditions.

[Cholmondley-Warner]

I am not one to make sweeping generalities Rog, insurance and reference to Conditions of Carriage are part of my every day job. First of all the Ben my Chree incident would come within the terms of Force Majeure - if that was disputed by a passenger, the onus is on that passenger to prove otherwise. The failure of the hydraulic ram could not have been foreseen, any suggestion that such components should be crack tested, x-rayed etc is impractical, just how many components on a ship would you have to check, even the failure of a twopenny oil seal could stop the vessel sailing. All major components are checked out during the vessels annual or bi-annual inspection, also many major components are kept on hand in the event of failure anyway, the SPCo have for instance among other parts, a set of rams for the stern door as "insurance" against their failure, but again practicality dictates that you cannot duplicate every component and keep it to hand just in case. The particular component that failed does not have a shelf life, it is probably over engineered and built to last the lifetime of the ship.

 

 

Force Majeure literally means "greater force". These clauses excuse a party from liability if some unforseen event beyond the control of that party prevents it from performing its obligations under the contract. Typically, force majeure clauses cover natural disasters or other "Acts of God", war, or the failure of third parties--such as suppliers and subcontractors--to perform their obligations to the contracting party. It is important to remember that force majeure clauses are intended to excuse a party only if the failure to perform could not be avoided by the exercise of due care by that party.

 

 

 

Notwithstanding the above, the SPCo's conditions of carriage which are governed by the Athens convention, in all cases limits the liability of any payment to passenger, currently the liability of the carrier for the loss of or damage to vehicles including all luggage carried in or on the vehicle is limited to12,700 SDR (about US$18,000) per vehicle, per carriage. Conditions of carriage have evolved over the years and have been well tried and tested in courts of law, the only real way of getting around them is if there has been negligence on behalf of the carrier, in this particualr incident my experience tells me that you wouldn't stand a chance of proving negligence and as I said previously the assistance given by the Steam Packet is a goodwill gesture although I am aware that costs for the whole incident will be claimed off their insurers.

 

February 24, 2006

1 SDR =

1.43559 USD

 

1. The detailed Conditions of Carriage of the Steam Packet apply to this contract for carriage. A copy of the full terms may be obtained on request or at the port of departure. The provisions of the Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their luggage at Sea 1974, including all versions from time to time applicable, having force in the Isle of Man ("The Athens Convention") apply to the contract. The Athens Convention limits the Steam Packets liability for the death of or personal injury to a passenger and/or for loss of or damage to luggage (including a private vehicle) to incidents which are due to the fault of the Steam Packet or it's servants or agents acting within the scope of their employment. The Athens Convention limits amounts that may be recoverable by the passenger.

 

As GTBB correctly says the Freight Carriers who have trailers stuck on board the vessel also will have their own conditions of carriage and they will claim Force Majeure delayed the freight and thus the problem was not of their making.

[Rog]

It’s true that the freight carriers could claim force majeure and could seek compensation from their insurers but a force majeure excuse, for that is what it is, by the SP is a VERY weak argument indeed. As for the Athens convention, that applies to passengers and their luggage, not to freight.

 

As for the component failing – the argument that it can not e periodically inspected is baloney. It might be difficult and expensive to test but not impossible. If there was a seriously big claim then I have serious doubts that the SP would get away with it in a UK court.

 

I’ve seen the ram in question and at the time thought it a problem waiting to happen. The stresses that it has to withstand due to the movement of the boat simply has to raise the question of the probability of fatigue failures.

 

Reliability engineering is no longer rocket science (pun intended) and from where I sit the only defence the SP MIGHT have if push came to shove, let’s say G-d forbid someone had been killed and the UK H & S boys had got their teeth into the matter, would be to pass the problem back to the designer who might not have taken the various dynamic stresses the thing would encounter when he specified and designed it and so given it a safe working life.

 

Good grief, it’s not in the least unusual for safety critical hydraulic (or for that matter ANY) components to have designated working lives specified.

 

The reality is that there has probably not been a loss that would justify a full blown court action in this case but nonetheless if there had been an injury or a death then things would be very different.

 

The view that there was nothing that the SP could have done to foresee this is wrong. If I could see that there was a weakness and I’m not a mechanical engineer then a competent mechanical engineer must surely have been able to see it also.

 

Maybe the SP should engage in a serious safety audit of their boats, not just the passenger areas but the whole thing. After all they were lucky this time – no one was injured (as far as we know).

[zippy]

Seems to be some very clever people around here - I suppose that's always teh case on internet forums.

 

Its easy to criticise (just look at every other thread regarding government/ steam packet/ island life in general)

[Cholmondley-Warner]

Thanks for some interesting points Rog, I disagree with you on some of them though and my point of view is that this does qualify as Force Majeure. I don't see that as an excuse but a fact.

 

As the thread was orignally about cars being stuck on board the Ben, I quoted the Athens convention as it relates to passengers, luggage and their private vehicles. Regardless of the Athens convention anything or anyone carried on board the vessel is subject to the Companies own conditions of carriage, you are deemed to have agreed to be bound by the conditions when you enter into a contract i.e. purchase a ticket. The conditions would not normally be over ridden by anything other than a claim for negligence and they exclude claims for consequential loss.

 

With regard to the failure of the component, yes I have seen it also, it is a substantial piece of metal and I would point out that there were a number of vessels built by Van der Giessen which were identical in construction if not size. MacGreggor who built the ramp will have made the neccessary calculation and from their professional viewpoint the ram was sufficiently strong enough for the job although you say that you are not a mechanical engineer but that a competent mechanical engineer must surely have been able to see the apparent weakness, perhaps the Steam Packet should invite you round and point out all the other potential problems on their vessels? I would agree with you that if it was found that the ram was not man enough for the purpose then that would be the designers fault, I would imagine that Marine Administration would be advised of this failure and they may well investigate.

 

I did not say that the component could not be periodically inspected, apart from their own maintenance and inspection the vessel is subject to statutory annual inspection although I cannot say which components are inspected but certainly everything safety related will be checked and a considerable amount of the mechanical components will likewise be. The relevant authorities and Lloyds have laid out the procedure for this.

 

The Steam Packet are very H&S conscious, of that I am very aware. During the operation to lower the ramp, no one is allowed on the ramp or under it, when it is up its locked in position, when its down its own weight keeps it in place. It is also a watertight door between decks and the vessel cannot sail without it being in the up position thus closing off the bottom deck from the elements. The chances of someone being injured when the ramp is being lowered are remote but never say never. I am not certain but I would imagine that there is some kind of fail safe device fitted to prevent the ramp crashing down onto the lower deck, I will try and find this out. As far as safety audits go I believe that these are dicated by the authorities and there is a statutory obligation to carry them out as specified.

 

I don't believe any criticism can be levelled at the SPCO, they suffered an unforeseen breakdown and have been honourable in their dealings with their clients on this occasion.