Hague/Hague Visby Rules - Fire Defence - SOLAS Compliance Does Not Guarantee Due Diligence

August 2002

The Commercial Court in London recently heard an important case bought by cargo interests for loss of cars following a fire. The Defendants were time charterers of the vessel, the carriers under the bills of lading. However, the Plaintiff’s claim was essentially based on the owners’/managers’ alleged failure to exercise due diligence in providing a seaworthy vessel. The charterers also faced a substantial claim in arbitration by the owners for loss of the vessel caused by acts of the charterers’ servants.

While the "Eurasian Dream" was discharging cars in Sharjah in July 1998, a fire occurred on one of the car decks. Although the precise circumstances could not be ascertained, it is clear that the fire was triggered by the charterers’ stevedores who were simultaneously refuelling and jump-starting vehicles using batteries on a pick-up truck. The fire spread rapidly and eventually, despite the efforts of the crew and local fire-fighting authorities, the vessel and much of her cargo became a constructive total loss.

Evidence from the stevedores and crew, who were nearby when the fire started, suggested that there was an initial fireball and the fire spread so quickly that it could not be contained with fire extinguishers. The Defendants also argued that CO₂ could not be deployed early enough due to the length of time necessary to close the airtight doors after all ship and shore personnel had been accounted for. By the time it could be used, the fire was out of control.

The Plaintiff’s expert witness, who had over 37 years experience with car carriers, said that his company managed 35 ships and that there were fires onboard on average every two months. However, he had never experienced a case where a fire got so out of control that it led to the total loss of the vessel. Plaintiff’s expert witness, however, had not examined the "Eurasian Dream".

The Judge held that this was a relatively minor fire which could have been extinguished rapidly if the crew had been properly trained, equipped and led. In reaching this decision the Judge gave little weight to the evidence of the stevedores and crew, who had been at the scene of the fire, but relied instead on the evidence of the Plaintiff’s expert, who had not. Further, although the ship was not, and did not need to be, ISM certified, this did not prevent the Judge from requiring an ISM-type standard in respect of the documentation he was expecting to see i.e. ship-specific instructions derived from a comprehensive risk-assessment of the vessel in question.

Several issues raised by the judgement provide useful guidance to Ship managers monitoring compliance with obligations under the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules and ISM Code:

 

Vessel-Specific Training For Master

The Master had taken command in April 1998 and had completed 2 voyages prior to the voyage in question. However, he had never previously commanded a car carrier and his only preparation for the voyage was a brief general induction process due to shortage of time. He had not been trained in the risk of cargo operations particular to car carriers nor in the methods to address these.

Vessel-Specific Procedures and Crew Training

The importance of vessel-specific fire fighting proceedures and an effective regime of training and drills was highlighted; It is not sufficient to have manuals of a general nature on board and crew untrained in implementation.

Equipment

When the fire broke out, 3 out of the 4 walkie talkies on board were being used by crew involved in bunkering. In the circumstances, the judge took the view that this number was insufficient for the purposes of a car carrier, particularly in an emergency. SOLAS provisions were satisfied in this respect however, the judge held that this alone was not necessarily sufficient to ensure compliance with Hague/Hague-Visby Rules due diligence requirements. Compliance with SOLAS will not guarantee that a vessel is seaworthy for the purposes of the Rules.

 

In summary, the view that the fire could have been brought under control with adequate fire-fighting procedures and training led to the Judge’s finding that the owner was in breach of obligations imposed by Article III Rules 1 and 2 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules. As a result, the fire defence under Article IV Rule 2 (b) could not be claimed, even though the owners were not responsible for starting the fire.

Papera Traders Co Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm)