Lambert v VJ Glover Ltd

A skipper owes crew members a duty not to expose them negligently to dangers from which they cannot protect themselves by good seamanship. That duty does not make the skipper liable for an injury caused solely by a crew member placing a body part in an obviously dangerous position. A vessel owner must maintain the vessel and its operation in a reasonably safe condition and appoint a reasonably competent skipper. Before the court can apply section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, it must first find that the claimant is entitled to damages. The claim was dismissed because the injury resulted from the claimant’s own failure to take reasonable care, rather than from any breach by the skipper or owner.

The claimant, an experienced self-employed share fisherman, suffered a serious hand injury while working aboard the fishing vessel REJOICE. He alleged that the vessel was inadequately moored, fendered and lit, and that the skipper had instructed him to throw rubbish overboard. The defendants denied liability and alleged that the claimant had placed his hand in a dangerous position. The defendants also raised fundamental dishonesty under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

The court determined liability, causation and contributory issues first because there was insufficient time to determine quantum. The central questions were whether either defendant owed and breached a relevant duty of care, whether that breach caused the injury, and whether section 57 was engaged.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant’s injury was caused entirely by his own failure to take sensible and reasonable care. The first defendant was not vicariously liable because the injury was not caused by any fault of the skipper, and there was no defect in the vessel or its equipment.
2. A skipper owes crew members a duty not to negligently expose them to dangerous situations from which they cannot protect themselves by exercising good seamanship. Good seamanship includes ordinary common sense, including avoiding placing any part of the body between a vessel and a jetty.
3. The claimant was asked to clean the accommodation and galley. The court found that he was not instructed to throw the rubbish overboard and that the decision to do so was his own. Throwing rubbish overboard was not intrinsically dangerous if carried out sensibly. The obvious danger arose when the claimant placed his hand outside the dredge, between it and the quay’s rubber facing.
4. The court accepted that the vessel was moored with a head rope, stern rope and spring, and that fenders and lighting were sufficient. In any event, the alleged defects in mooring, fendering and lighting would not have had causative potency. The skipper was not shown to be incompetent or unsuitable for appointment.
5. The owner’s duty, including under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, required the vessel and its operation to be maintained in a reasonably safe condition and a reasonably competent skipper to be appointed. That duty was not breached.
6. Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 applies only where the court first finds that the claimant is entitled to damages. Since the claim failed on liability and causation, section 57 did not apply.