>13. The Casualty was not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care on the part of
Petitioners, the Vessel, or any persons or entities for whose acts Petitioners may be responsible.
This comes out of nowhere and they base everything on this statement! Amazing
It's a petition early on in the case, so it just needs to be based upon "information and belief". The fact-finding step of the multi-year process has yet to begin, but lawyers need to present the best plausible case possible at this stage.
There was no fault neglect or want of care. The engine failed. The ship was out of control. It was not bad maneuvering. It was not sleeping on the wheel. It was not want of care (it was piloted by a harbor pilot).
The engine failing isn't some random, unlucky event. Regular maintenance and inspection should prevent this. Whenever this happens to an airplane it's considered negligence - there's no reason why we shouldn't have the same standards for ships.
"Regular maintenance and inspection should prevent this."
Not always. We have regular maintenance done on our SMT lines by the company that manufactured the machines. Those things still fuck up once or twice a month, very unexpectedly, and almost always in the middle of a high-value operation (IC or LED placement.)
That said, I don't think it's immediately considered negligence when an airlines engine fails. Its premature to call Dali negligence as well; it may very well be but the investigation needs to complete.
A bit premature to declare so, don't you think? What if it comes out that corners were cut regarding engine maintenance or something along those lines?
That will have to be an argument that is made and it will be a difficult argument to make.
“Engine was not maintained well” is so deeply opinionated. The first thing they do is check standards. Was it oiled? Were the parts replaced periodically? Was the fuel type correct?
It could be a mistake. “What kind of engine?” “It needs this type of fuel.” “Oops, no, that was for the older ship. This is a different ship.” “The ship already set sail.” “Nevermind then and keep your mouth shut.”
exactly, is there already an official verdict sourcing from official investigation? I don't think so
Furthermore, the engine is part of the vessel, if the verdict is that the engine failed then the vessel owner/insurance can claim any penalties(plus extras) from the engine manufacturer
>13. The Casualty was not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care on the part of Petitioners, the Vessel, or any persons or entities for whose acts Petitioners may be responsible.
This comes out of nowhere and they base everything on this statement! Amazing