A docker’s leg was broken in three places when he was hit by a crane grab while working in the hold of a boat.
The States Trading Supervisory Board was fined £40,000 after admitting that it failed to ensure that non-employees were not exposed to risk, namely contact with moving machinery.
Guernsey Stevedores Ltd admitted to a similar charge, but for its employees, and was handed a fine of £22,000.
The Royal Court heard that the incident happened at about 2pm on 3 June last year as a consignment of loose sand was unloaded from the hold of the boat.
The crane was used to reduce sand to a level where a Bobcat mini digger could be lowered in to the bottom of the hold to move the sand into heaps for the crane to pick up.
The injured man was one of three dockers who were sweeping sand within the hold.
When the accident occurred he was the only one on the quay side of the hold and out of sight of the crane driver who was employed by the STSB.
Until some 30 years ago a ‘hatchman’ would be deployed on the ground to see blind spots the crane driver could not see, but this was no longer the case.
Unlike at St Peter Port Harbour, where cargo was in containers and there was radio communication between operatives, radio communication was not possible at St Sampson’s due to noise from the Bobcat and the crane.
In a victim impact statement read to the court, the injured man said he heard a colleague shout his name before seeing the crane grab slewing towards him.
‘I had no time to move out of the way and nowhere to go,’ he said.
He felt excruciating pain and at one stage feared he would lose his leg.
All three emergency services were called.
The man was taken to hospital where his broken leg was pinned.
‘When I woke from the operation, I feared what I was going to see under the blanket,’ he said.
The incident had affected him physically and psychologically. He had been diagnosed with PTSD and had to learn to walk again. He was off work for seven months.
The prosecution cited unsafe working practices, inadequate communication and insufficient risk assessments. Having a hatchman might have helped but alone would not created safe working practices. There were tidal and commercial pressures to get boats loaded or unloaded quickly at St Sampson’s.
The Health and Safety Executive began an investigation on the day of the accident. An order was imposed to prohibit people working in the hold of a ship when a crane was being used. The order is still in place today.
In 2012 the States and Guernsey Stevedores were fined £10,000 and £3,500 respectively after an employee of the company lost two fingers when his hand was crushed by a container. In 2020 the STSB was fined £20,000 after a man fell at the marina due to inadequate safety barriers.
For the STSB, Advocate Simon Geall said there had been no commercial pressures, cost cutting, wilful risk taking, or lack of training or equipment maintenance on his client’s part. Current procedures had been in place for 30 years, during which time some 1,500 to 2,000 boats had been unloaded this way without incident. He claimed the injured man should not have been standing where he was. Better communication had since been implemented and his client had co-operated with the investigation. He said the STSB was trying to increase the viability of the harbours in the face of some opposition.
Representing Guernsey Stevedores, Advocate Peter Ferbrache said his client had also co-operated with the investigation. The company was more than 60 years old and not a large one with excessive profits. All employees were well trained, including the injured man. His client had paid the man’s medical expenses. He said the court should not speculate as to whether the use of a hatchman would have prevented the accident.
In the court’s sentencing remarks, Judge Catherine Fooks said both defendants’ culpability was at a medium level.
Health and safety cases were concerned with risk of harm and any actual harm was an aggravating factor.
The defendants had previous convictions and a man had been seriously injured. Those aggravating factors were outweighed by their generally good safety records, no issues with lack of training or equipment, and no cost cutting.
One consideration was who would incur the burden of any fines imposed. Advocate Geall had pointed out that the financial position of the ports was dire.
You need to be logged in to comment. If you had an account on our previous site, you can migrate your old account and comment profile to this site by visiting this page and entering the email address for your old account. We'll then send you an email with a link to follow to complete the process.