blindness according to the great Lord Denning MR, in The Eurysthenes [1977] QB 49, 68:
“If a man suspicious of the truth, turns a blind eye to it, and refrains from enquiry — so that he should not know it for certain — then he is to be regarded as knowing the truth. The ‘turning a blind eye’ is far more blameworthy than mere negligence.”
And Lord Roskill LJ in the same case (76):
“If the facts amounting to unseaworthiness are there staring the assured in the face so that he must, had he thought of it, have realised their implication upon the unseaworthiness of his ship, he cannot escape from being held privy to that unseaworthiness by blindly or blandly ignoring those facts or by refraining from asking relevant questions regarding them in the hope that by his lack of inquiry he will not know for certain that which any inquiry must have made plain beyond possibility of doubt.”
Container stacks above the 4th tier could be secured as block units by using lashing bars long enough to reach between the bases of the highest tier of containers and the deck below, in the manner described: the longer and heavier lashing bars would be stowed on deck vertically, in specially designed storage bins, from which they would be removed by a specially designed device, suspended from the container crane and operated by a stevedore from deck. The device would, amongst other things, have a clamp capable of swivelling about 45º either side of the vertical; a sensor for alignment and an in-built mechanism for self- raising/ -lowering over a distance of about 300 mm. The clamp would grip the lashing bar at a pre-designed location below its swivel-head and lift it clear of the bin (with a stevedore holding its lower end to control its swing). The (device) operator would convey the lashing bar towards the relevant container corner casting, and the device’s sensor would detect and align the swivel-head with the casting, self- raising/lowering as appropriate. Once aligned, the operator would move the device towards the casting, enabling the swivel-head to engage with the casting. The device would then self-lower the bar to complete the connection. The clamp would
continue to grip the bar until the stevedores had secured its lower end to the deck below, in the usual manner. Thereafter, the operator would release the clamp and convey the device to the next lashing bar. Removal of a lashing bar would require the clamp to grip the angled lashing bar while the stevedore released its deck securing, and the bar swung vertically from the corner casting. The device would then self-raise until it was aligned and ready to be removed from the corner casting by the operator, who would then convey it to the storage bin.
Research into a safer container
securing system Shipowners, like other business owners, allocate funding readily towards building ships with greater container capacity, in order to increase profits – expected of respectable businesses. (Unfortunately, some shipowners may engage in anti-competitive conduct to increase profits, which has resulted in the establishment of a working group comprising the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, US Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Canadian Competition Bureau, NZ Commerce Commission and UK Competition and Markets Authority, to consider whether such conduct is prevalent). While expenditure towards increasing profits is good business practice, it is well known that every dollar allocated to safety is provided grudgingly, because safety affects the bottom line and shipowners refuse to grasp the principle of a return on safety. Ironically, since Covid-19, shipowners have experienced profit bonanzas as noted by Drewry on 23 December 2021:
(DMFR), the investment research arm of global shipping consultancy Drewry, remains bullish about continued high stock prices and rising profitability in the booming container carrier sector. The strong performance in the global container shipping sector has
generated very handsome spill-over benefits for stock investors. The returns since the start of 2020 have been astronomical.
Asian liner operators were the top performers; with Yang Ming up by 1,583% (as of mid-December 2021), followed by Evergreen Marine’s gain of 987% and Wan Hai’s 976%. HMM generated returns of 621%. More modest growth was seen in Europe, where Hapag-Lloyd shares increased by 192% and Maersk’s by 123%. Clearly, the pandemic and ensuing supply chain crisis that supercharged carrier profits has been the primary driver for the share price bonanza.
The astronomical returns and supercharged carrier profits mean that shipowners have a golden opportunity to fund research into designing a safer container securing system, while still declaring impressive dividends. Shippers, cargo owners, ports and consumers have a right to expect that shipowners, armed with bulging coffers, will act as responsible partners in the supply chain, working to eliminate container stack collapses; preventing risk of injury to crew and reducing the cost of goods to consumers. The consumers bear the heaviest burden with prices marked up by the cargo owners to recoup their triple whammy in losses: paying the deductible/excess; loss of profits and higher premiums at renewal. Cargo insurers also sustain losses because, having reimbursed cargo owners, they often forego recovery of smaller amounts from P&I Clubs because recovery charges make them uneconomical. Shipowners of course, can pass on their losses through higher freight rates.
To eliminate the risk of container stack collapses, shipowners should, as a matter of urgency, appoint a group of experts comprising P&I Clubs, class societies, hull and machinery underwriters, ports, stevedores and manufacturers of containers/lashing equipment. The experts’ principal task would be to design a container securing system that secured container stacks as block units, precluding their collapse in heavy weather. The proposed use of heavier and longer lashing bars as earlier described, is to demonstrate the capability of securing container stacks as block units, but importantly, to stimulate ideas towards achieving
The Report • September 2022 • Issue 101 | 107
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128
