Port Authority loses case

Yesterday, High Court judge Joan Charles found the Port Authority liable and ordered that damages be assessed for Elliot. The judge also ordered that compensation be paid by the Port to ORCA Transport Limited, owners of the truck.

The incident happened on April 15, 2009 when Elliot went to offload a cargo container.

He parked the truck and trailer at Block F-3 Bay 6 on the port. The crane operator lowered the ‘spreader’ onto the container on the trailer and engaged the locking pins and began to hoist the container off the truck. But Justice Charles stated in her judgment that Elliot alighted from the truck and unlocked the four pins which held the container in place before he signalled to the crane operator that the container was ready to be lifted.

Since the crane was supposed to lift only the container, Elliot re-entered the truck and signalled to the crane operator that the container was ready to be hoisted.

However, the hoist cable to which the ‘spreader’ bar was attached began swaying. The judge stated that in an attempt to stabilise the ‘spreader’ bar, the crane operator slammed it against the container.

When he did so, the locking pin hooked onto the container. The crane began to lift the container, but so to was truck and trailer with Elliot in the driver’s seat in the cabin. The judgment stated that Elliot sounded his horn to signal to the crane operator that the truck, trailer and container were being lifted into the air, but too no avail.

The crane lifted Elliot into the air and when it reached 20 feet in the air, the truck with its trailer and container, fell. Elliot no longer works as a result of his spinal injuries, he stated in a lawsuit filed by attorney Stephen Boodram who instructed attorney Lennox Sanguinette, for negligence.

ORCA also sued the PATT.

Justice Charles held that in her view, it was reasonably foreseeable that injury and loss may occur if clear guidelines for the loading and off loading of containers were not established by the PATT. In order to discharge the duty of care imposed on the PATT by the OSHA Act and common law, she stated, the defendant (PATT) had to show on evidence, that it had not breached the duty of care as occupier.

The PATT pleaded that it had issued a ‘Notice’ about procedures to be adopted for truck drivers when loading and unloading containers at the port before the date of the accident. However, Justice Charles stated, the PATT at the trial, disclosed a bulletin one year after the incident.

Judge Charles held that the PATT was in breach of its statutory duty to take steps to protect the safety and health of the public.

The act of unloading containers from trailers required care on the part of both Elliot and the PATT. The judge ordered that for ORCA, the PATT was 100 percent liable. For Elliot, she held that he is to be paid 80 percent of damages to be assessed, for by her findings, he contributed to the negligence to the extent of 20 percent.