Third-Party Personal Injury Incident Caused by Falling Steel Cargo During Charter Vessel Loading
Interlink編集部Anonymisation and Purpose of Publication
This article presents an actual incident in which steel cargo slipped from lifting gear during cargo handling for a chartered vessel and a local worker suffered a serious personal injury. Company names, individuals, the injured person, vessel, port, country, steel description, weight, date, stevedoring company, shipowner, vessel agent, local agent, insurers and other identifying information have been withheld.
Out of respect for the injured person and the parties involved, the article does not describe the specific injury, medical treatment, employment consequences or other personal information.
The anonymisation does not alter the fact that the forwarder was the principal contractor in relation to the cargo interest, that it used cargo space under a voyage charter arrangement, and that vessel navigation, appointment of the stevedoring company and operational control of cargo handling remained with the shipowner's side.
It also does not alter the fact that the weight or centre-of-gravity information for the steel cargo was inaccurate, that the cargo slipped from the lifting gear during handling, and that a local worker suffered a serious personal-injury incident.
The local investigation treated the matter as an operational responsibility of the stevedoring company. The forwarder received enquiries, but because it had not appointed or directed the stevedore, no formal compensation claim was ultimately presented against it.
The compensation provided to the injured person, the final allocation among the stevedore, shipowner and other parties, the amounts paid, and the formal closure date cannot be confirmed.
Case Overview
The case arose during transportation of steel cargo. The forwarder had accepted the transportation as principal contractor in relation to the cargo interest and used cargo space on a vessel under a voyage charter arrangement.
The arrangement did not place vessel navigation or physical cargo-handling control with the forwarder. The shipowner's side remained responsible for vessel operations, appointment of the stevedoring company and operational control of the cargo-handling work.
During cargo handling at the local port, steel cargo being lifted slipped from the lifting gear and a worker at the site suffered a serious personal injury.
The investigation identified inaccurate information concerning the weight or centre of gravity of the steel cargo as a relevant causal factor. Such an error may affect lifting-gear selection, lifting points, rigging method, sling angles, load distribution and stability of the suspended cargo.
It cannot be confirmed who originally prepared the inaccurate information, who verified it, or through which contractual or operational channel it was transmitted to the stevedoring company.
The stevedoring company had been appointed by the shipowner or vessel agent. The physical operation and site safety were directed by the stevedore's site supervisor.
Because the forwarder was the principal transport contractor, it received enquiries following the incident. After receiving a report from its local agent, it requested information from the shipowner or vessel agent, notified its liability insurer, consulted legal counsel, and reviewed the voyage charter, stevedoring arrangements and operational command structure.
The local investigation treated the accident as an operational responsibility of the stevedoring company. The forwarder had not appointed the stevedore and had not controlled the lifting gear, rigging or worksite. The enquiries therefore did not develop into a formal compensation claim, and no compensation or settlement payment by the forwarder was made.
This does not establish that the injured worker received no compensation. Any workers' compensation, employer's liability, shipowner's liability or other settlement cannot be confirmed.
Specific Scope of This Article
This article concerns a third-party personal-injury incident caused by steel cargo slipping from lifting gear during cargo handling for a vessel used under a voyage charter arrangement.
The forwarder was the principal contractor under its transportation agreement with the cargo interest. It was not, however, the vessel operator, the party appointing the stevedoring company or the party directing the physical lifting operation.
The forwarder used cargo space on the vessel. Navigation, appointment of the stevedore and operational control of cargo handling remained with the shipowner's side.
A voyage charter does not invariably place cargo-handling costs or responsibility on the shipowner. Loading, discharging, stevedore appointment and related responsibilities may differ according to the specific charter terms. The conclusion in this case was based on the actual contractual terms, the appointment structure and the operational command chain, rather than the label of voyage charter alone.
The case-specific analysis required separation of three distinct areas.
| Area | Issue in This Case | Liability Consideration |
|---|---|---|
| Transport-contract position | The forwarder was the principal contractor in relation to the cargo interest. | Principal-contract status did not automatically establish physical stevedoring responsibility. |
| Cargo-information responsibility | The weight or centre-of-gravity information was inaccurate. | The creator, verifier and transmitter of the information required identification. |
| Operational responsibility | The stevedore selected the lifting gear, rigged the cargo and controlled site safety. | Operational verification and stop-work decisions required separate review. |
The article does not primarily concern physical damage to the steel cargo, shortage, damage to the vessel or damage to port equipment. It is also not a case in which the forwarder directly performed the stevedoring work.
Anonymised Accident Conditions
| Item | Case Condition | Point Requiring Verification |
|---|---|---|
| Cargo | Steel cargo | The type, shape, number of units, weight and intended use are withheld. |
| Transport contract | Forwarder acting as principal contractor in relation to the cargo interest | Contractual responsibility must be separated from operational control. |
| Vessel-use arrangement | Use of cargo space under a voyage charter | The forwarder did not directly operate the vessel or control stevedoring. |
| Vessel navigation | Controlled by the shipowner's side | The forwarder did not direct the master or crew. |
| Appointment of stevedore | Shipowner or vessel agent | The forwarder did not directly appoint the stevedoring company. |
| Operational supervisor | Stevedore's site supervisor | The supervisor controlled lifting, rigging and the work area. |
| Stage | During cargo handling | The distinction between loading and discharge is withheld. |
| Immediate event | Steel cargo slipped from the lifting gear | The incident was treated as slippage rather than confirmed gear breakage. |
| Relevant causal information | Inaccurate weight or centre-of-gravity information | The creator and transmission route cannot be confirmed. |
| Injured person | Local cargo-handling worker | Name, employer and injury details are withheld. |
| Severity | Serious personal-injury incident | Specific medical details are not included. |
| Enquiries to forwarder | Received | An enquiry must be distinguished from a formal claim. |
| Formal claim against forwarder | None | No formal demand or legal claim has been confirmed. |
| Amount defended by forwarder | None | No quantum negotiation took place. |
| Payment by forwarder | None | No compensation or settlement payment has been confirmed. |
| Compensation to injured person | Cannot be confirmed | This is separate from the absence of a claim against the forwarder. |
| Local investigation outcome | Operational responsibility of the stevedoring company | The forwarder's lack of appointment and supervision was relevant. |
| Formal closure date | Cannot be confirmed | The final reporting and monitoring period are unknown. |
Timeline from Accident to Resolution
| Stage | Event | Operational Point |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The forwarder accepted the steel-cargo transportation as principal contractor. | The scope and responsibility under the transport contract required review. |
| 2 | Cargo space was arranged under a voyage charter. | The allocation of vessel operations and cargo handling required confirmation. |
| 3 | The shipowner or vessel agent appointed the local stevedoring company. | The stevedoring contract and appointment record required review. |
| 4 | Weight or centre-of-gravity information was supplied for the steel cargo. | The author, verifier, version and transmission route required confirmation. |
| 5 | Cargo handling began under the stevedore's site supervisor. | The lifting plan, rigging and exclusion-zone controls required review. |
| 6 | The steel cargo was lifted. | Lifting points, angles, load distribution and stability required confirmation. |
| 7 | The cargo slipped from the lifting gear. | The direction of slippage, equipment condition and worker positions required recording. |
| 8 | A local worker suffered a serious injury. | Emergency assistance took priority. |
| 9 | The local agent reported the incident to the forwarder. | Confirmed facts had to be separated from preliminary information. |
| 10 | The forwarder requested information from the shipowner or vessel agent. | The operating party, appointment structure and local response required confirmation. |
| 11 | The forwarder's liability insurer was notified. | Early notice was required before any formal demand. |
| 12 | Local or Japanese legal counsel was consulted. | Local law, contracts and communication strategy required review. |
| 13 | The voyage charter, stevedoring arrangements and operational command structure were reviewed. | The party appointing and directing the stevedore required identification. |
| 14 | It was confirmed that the forwarder did not control vessel operations or cargo handling. | Principal-contract status had to be separated from operational control. |
| 15 | The local investigation treated the matter as the stevedore's operational responsibility. | The information error and operational responsibility required separate analysis. |
| 16 | Enquiries were made to the forwarder, but no formal claim followed. | Enquiries, notices, demands and court proceedings required separate management. |
| 17 | No compensation or settlement payment by the forwarder was made. | Compensation by other parties remains unknown. |
Issues in Dispute
| Issue | Known Circumstance | Required Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Voyage-charter terms | The forwarder used cargo space only. | Navigation, loading, discharge and stevedore appointment required confirmation. |
| Forwarder's principal-contract position | The forwarder was principal contractor in relation to the cargo interest. | Contractual responsibility had to be separated from operational responsibility. |
| Appointment of stevedore | The shipowner or vessel agent appointed the company. | Any involvement of the forwarder in selection or supervision required review. |
| Operational supervision | The stevedore's site supervisor directed the work. | The party controlling the lifting plan, rigging and exclusion zone required identification. |
| Weight information | The stated weight may have been inaccurate. | Weighing records, cargo schedules and authorship required confirmation. |
| Centre-of-gravity information | The stated centre may not have matched the actual cargo. | Shape, internal structure, lifting points and markings required review. |
| Transmission of information | The information received by the stevedore was relevant. | Emails, instructions and revision history required review. |
| Selection of lifting gear | The cargo slipped from the lifting gear. | Suitability for the weight, shape, centre and safe working load required review. |
| Rigging method | The method did not prevent slippage. | Attachment points, angle, friction and anti-slip measures required review. |
| Test lift | It cannot be confirmed whether one was properly conducted. | Balance, tilt and movement should have been checked before full lifting. |
| Stop-work decision | The stevedore's supervisor directed the operation. | The response to instability or abnormal loading required review. |
| Exclusion zone | A worker was injured by the falling load. | Access beneath or near suspended cargo required review. |
| Formal claim | Enquiries were made but no formal claim followed. | Information requests and compensation demands had to be distinguished. |
| Compensation to the worker | Cannot be confirmed | No inference should be drawn from the absence of a claim against the forwarder. |
Positions and Contractual Relationships of the Parties
| Party | Position in the Case | Liability Consideration |
|---|---|---|
| Cargo owner or cargo interest | Party requesting transportation of the steel cargo | Provision of weight, centre-of-gravity and lifting information required review. |
| Forwarder | Principal contractor in relation to the cargo interest | Contractual responsibility had to be distinguished from stevedoring responsibility. |
| Shipowner | Party providing the vessel and cargo space under the voyage charter | Vessel operations, equipment and stevedoring arrangements required review. |
| Vessel agent | Local party involved in vessel and stevedoring arrangements | Appointment, communications and incident reporting required confirmation. |
| Stevedoring company | Party directly performing the cargo handling | Lifting gear, rigging, supervision, site safety and employer responsibility required review. |
| Stevedore's site supervisor | Person directing the operation | Lifting plan, test lift, exclusion zone and stop-work decisions required review. |
| Injured worker | Local worker injured in the incident | Employment and compensation details remain private or unconfirmed. |
| Local agent | Party reporting the incident to the forwarder | Reporting and communication channels required review. |
| Forwarder's liability insurer | Insurer notified of potential third-party bodily-injury exposure | Early notice was appropriate even without a formal claim. |
| Local or Japanese legal counsel | Adviser on law, contracts and claim response | Admissions, communications and evidence preservation required review. |
Evidence and Documents Reviewed
The case required evidence concerning the voyage-charter terms, stevedore appointment, operational command structure, preparation and transmission of weight and centre-of-gravity information, and the forwarder's actual involvement in the physical operation.
It cannot be confirmed that every document below was obtained or preserved.
| Document | Main Information | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Transport contract with cargo interest | Forwarder's principal scope and responsibility | Establishes the forwarder's contractual position. |
| Voyage-charter agreement | Cargo space, vessel operations and cargo-handling allocation | Defines the boundary between the shipowner's side and the forwarder. |
| Cargo-handling clauses | Loading, discharge, costs and stevedore appointment | Prevents responsibility from being inferred from the charter label alone. |
| Stevedoring contract or appointment record | Party appointing the stevedoring company | Confirms that the forwarder was not the appointing party. |
| Operational command chart | Supervisor, signal personnel, riggers and workers | Identifies the party controlling site safety. |
| Steel schedule and weight sheet | Weight, dimensions and identification of each item | Identifies the inaccurate weight information. |
| Centre-of-gravity and lifting-point information | Centre position and recommended lifting points | Supports analysis of cargo slippage. |
| Weighing records | Measured weight, method and date | Allows comparison with declared information. |
| Revision and transmission records | Creation, amendment and delivery of cargo information | Shows which information reached the stevedore. |
| Lifting plan | Lifting gear, rigging, sequence and safety measures | Shows the stevedore's planned method. |
| Lifting-gear records | Type, safe working load, inspection and use | Shows whether the equipment was suitable. |
| Rigging records | Attachment position, sling angle and personnel | Supports review of anti-slip measures. |
| Test-lift record | Balance, stability and centre-of-gravity confirmation | Shows whether the information error could have been identified on site. |
| Photographs and video | Suspended-load condition, work area and accident sequence | Provides objective evidence of the event. |
| Witness statements | Instructions, load movement and accident circumstances | Supports review of supervision and response. |
| Stevedore incident report | Cause, operators, equipment and corrective action | Shows the stevedore's initial account. |
| Local-agent report | Incident, local response and parties | Shows when the forwarder became aware of the matter. |
| Enquiries to shipowner or vessel agent | Appointment and local incident handling | Shows the forwarder's investigation. |
| Notice to insurer | Timing, incident description and reservation | Shows the insurance response. |
| Legal-advice records | Local law, contracts and communication strategy | Shows the basis for avoiding premature admission. |
| Enquiries addressed to the forwarder | Sender, questions and any liability allegation | Distinguishes enquiries from a formal claim. |
| Formal demands or court documents | None confirmed | Supports the conclusion that no formal claim was presented. |
Analysis of Cause, Causation and Scope of Liability
The immediate event was that steel cargo slipped from lifting gear during cargo handling and caused serious injury to a local worker.
Inaccurate weight or centre-of-gravity information was identified as a relevant causal factor.
An understated weight may result in lifting equipment, sling configuration or lifting arrangements that do not properly account for the actual load.
An incorrect centre of gravity may cause the cargo to tilt when lifted, concentrate the load on part of the rigging, and increase the risk of movement or slippage.
The existence of inaccurate information did not, by itself, determine the entire allocation of responsibility. The person who prepared, verified or transmitted the information could not be confirmed.
The stevedoring company performing the lift also had responsibility for selecting suitable lifting gear, rigging the cargo, conducting appropriate checks and stopping the work if the suspended load was unstable.
Where weight or centre-of-gravity information is uncertain, a controlled test lift at low height is important to identify imbalance, movement or unexpected load distribution before the cargo is fully suspended.
The stevedoring company had been appointed by the shipowner or vessel agent, and its site supervisor directed the physical operation. The forwarder did not appoint the stevedore or control the lifting equipment, rigging, test lift, exclusion zone or worksite.
The forwarder was the principal contractor in relation to the cargo interest, but it used cargo space under a voyage charter and did not exercise operational control over the vessel or stevedoring.
The local investigation therefore treated the accident as an operational responsibility of the stevedoring company. The forwarder received enquiries because of its contractual position, but no formal compensation claim was presented against it.
This conclusion applies to the specific contractual and operational arrangement in this case. A voyage charter does not automatically allocate stevedoring responsibility to the shipowner in every case.
Verification of Loss and Amount Claimed
Enquiries were made to the forwarder, but no formal compensation demand was presented.
There was therefore no claim amount, defended amount or payment by the forwarder.
This does not mean that the incident caused no personal loss or that the worker received no compensation. Medical costs, employment-related loss, workers' compensation, employer's liability and payments by other parties cannot be confirmed.
| Category | Known Information | Point Requiring Verification |
|---|---|---|
| Initial enquiries to forwarder | Received | The enquiries concerned facts and potential responsibility. |
| Formal claim against forwarder | None | No formal demand or lawsuit has been confirmed. |
| Amount claimed from forwarder | None | No monetary demand was presented. |
| Amount defended by forwarder | None | The matter did not proceed to quantum negotiation. |
| Payment by forwarder | None | No compensation or settlement payment has been confirmed. |
| Personal-injury loss | Cannot be confirmed | Specific injury and loss details are not published. |
| Compensation to the worker | Cannot be confirmed | No inference should be drawn from the absence of a forwarder claim. |
| Stevedore's financial burden | Cannot be confirmed | Operational responsibility and actual payment are separate issues. |
| Shipowner's financial burden | Cannot be confirmed | Shipowner liability or insurance response is unknown. |
| Insurance payment under forwarder's policy | None | No formal liability or payment arose for the forwarder. |
Insurance Notice, Lawyer Response and Onward Recovery
| Item | Known Fact | Required Handling in a Similar Case |
|---|---|---|
| Notice to liability insurer | The forwarder's liability insurer was notified. | Serious injury incidents should be notified before a formal demand. |
| Third-party bodily-injury liability | Potential coverage was reviewed. | The forwarder's legal liability must first be established. |
| Admission of liability | The forwarder did not admit formal liability. | Do not make an unconditional admission before local and contractual review. |
| Legal consultation | Local or Japanese legal counsel was consulted. | Review local law, workers' compensation, employer liability and contracts. |
| Voyage-charter review | Completed | Confirm the allocation of cargo space, vessel operations and cargo handling. |
| Stevedoring-contract review | Completed | Confirm which party appointed the stevedore. |
| Operational-command review | The stevedore's supervisor was identified as the site controller. | Identify the party exercising actual safety control. |
| Formal claim | No formal claim was presented against the forwarder. | Manage enquiries, claim notices and demands separately. |
| Insurance payment | None | No compensation obligation arose for the forwarder. |
| Onward recovery | Not required | Preserve rights if the forwarder later makes any payment. |
Actual Resolution
Steel cargo slipped from lifting gear during cargo handling for a vessel used under a voyage charter arrangement, and a local worker suffered a serious injury.
Inaccurate weight or centre-of-gravity information was identified as a relevant causal factor. The creator, verifier and transmission route of the information cannot be confirmed.
The forwarder was the principal contractor in relation to the cargo interest. It used cargo space on the vessel, while vessel navigation, appointment of the stevedoring company and operational control of cargo handling remained with the shipowner's side.
After receiving the incident report from its local agent, the forwarder requested information from the shipowner or vessel agent, notified its liability insurer, consulted legal counsel, and reviewed the voyage charter, stevedoring arrangements and operational command structure.
The local investigation treated the incident as an operational responsibility of the stevedoring company.
Because the forwarder had not appointed or supervised the stevedore and did not control the lifting gear, rigging, test lift or worksite, the enquiries made to the forwarder did not develop into a formal compensation claim.
No compensation or settlement payment by the forwarder was made.
The compensation provided to the injured person, the final allocation among the stevedore, shipowner and other parties, and the related amounts cannot be confirmed.
The date of formal closure and the period during which the forwarder continued to monitor the matter also cannot be confirmed.
Preventive Measures Before the Accident
| Timing | Responsible Party | Case-Specific Measure |
|---|---|---|
| At acceptance | Cargo interest and forwarder | Confirm the weight, shape, centre of gravity and lifting points of each steel item. |
| Upon receipt of information | Forwarder | Confirm the author, measurement basis, revision number and date. |
| When transmitting information | Forwarder and local agent | Provide only the current weight schedule and lifting-point information. |
| During charter review | Forwarder | Confirm responsibility for vessel operations, stevedore appointment, loading, discharge and site safety. |
| When appointing the stevedore | Shipowner or vessel agent | Verify heavy-lift experience, qualifications, equipment and liability insurance. |
| During lifting planning | Stevedoring company | Plan for weight, centre of gravity, lifting points, gear, safe working load and exclusion zones. |
| When selecting lifting gear | Stevedoring company | Account for actual load, sling angles and unequal loading. |
| During rigging | Stevedoring company | Use attachment positions and anti-slip measures suitable for the cargo. |
| Before lifting | Stevedore's site supervisor | Conduct a test lift and confirm balance, movement and load distribution. |
| During handling | Stevedoring company | Exclude personnel from beneath and within the potential fall zone. |
| Upon identifying an abnormality | Stevedore's site supervisor | Stop the operation where the actual lifting condition differs from the supplied information. |
| When reviewing internal expertise | Forwarder | Where in-house conventional-vessel or heavy-lift expertise is unavailable, arrange review by the shipowner, specialist stevedore or independent expert. |
Immediate Response After Discovery
| Sequence | Responsible Party | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Site parties | Prioritise rescue and local emergency response. |
| 2 | Stevedoring company | Stop the operation and isolate the site to prevent a secondary accident. |
| 3 | Stevedore and vessel interests | Preserve the lifting gear, cargo, crane and worksite without unnecessary movement. |
| 4 | Local agent | Report confirmed facts and unresolved issues to the forwarder. |
| 5 | Forwarder | Send formal enquiries to the shipowner or vessel agent. |
| 6 | Forwarder | Notify the liability insurer before any formal claim is received. |
| 7 | Forwarder | Consult local or Japanese legal counsel on communications and responsibility. |
| 8 | Relevant parties | Preserve weight schedules, centre-of-gravity information, lifting plans, equipment records, photographs and video. |
| 9 | Forwarder | Review the voyage charter, stevedoring contract and operational command structure. |
| 10 | Forwarder | Obtain written confirmation of who appointed and directed the stevedoring company. |
| 11 | Forwarder | Do not make an unconditional admission before cause and responsibility are established. |
| 12 | Forwarder | Coordinate any direct contact with the injured person or family through local parties and counsel. |
Measures to Resolve and Close the Claim
| Area | Action | Required Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Charter terms | Review the voyage charter and cargo-handling clauses. | Establish contractual responsibility for vessel operations and stevedoring. |
| Weight and centre information | Review the author, measurement basis, version and transmission route. | Identify where the information error arose. |
| Lifting plan | Review lifting gear, attachment points, rigging and safe working load. | Determine the effect of the inaccurate information. |
| Operational performance | Review test lifting, stability and stop-work decisions. | Establish the stevedore's operational responsibility. |
| Exclusion zone | Review access controls and worker positioning. | Identify safety-control factors relevant to the injury. |
| Appointment of stevedore | Review appointment and contractual records. | Confirm that the forwarder was not the appointing party. |
| Operational command | Identify supervisors, signal personnel and work instructions. | Confirm that the forwarder did not control the operation. |
| Principal-contract position | Review the forwarder's transport contract and reporting duties. | Fulfil necessary contractual and communication obligations. |
| Insurance | Review potential third-party bodily-injury coverage. | Maintain the file in case a formal claim is later presented. |
| Legal response | Review local law and contractual responsibility. | Provide consistent responses to all enquiries. |
| Formal-claim status | Manage enquiries, demands and court documents separately. | Record that no formal claim was presented. |
| Compensation to injured person | Record only confirmed information. | Do not speculate about compensation by other parties. |
| Closure | Seek final reporting and confirm whether any claim remains outstanding. | Record either formal closure or continuing monitoring. |
Practical Lessons
- A forwarder acting as principal transport contractor may become the enquiry contact even where it did not perform the hazardous operation.
- The label of voyage charter alone does not determine which party bears stevedoring responsibility. The specific charter terms, appointment structure and operational command chain must be reviewed.
- In this case, the forwarder used cargo space only, while vessel navigation, appointment of the stevedore and operational control remained with the shipowner's side.
- The forwarder's contractual position in relation to the cargo interest was not the same as direct control over the hazardous lifting operation.
- Inaccurate weight or centre-of-gravity information does not remove the stevedore's responsibility to verify lifting stability, select suitable equipment and stop an unsafe operation.
- Heavy-lift operations should not rely solely on written cargo information. A controlled test lift is necessary to identify imbalance, movement and unequal loading.
- Forwarders whose regular business is container transportation may not maintain in-house expertise in conventional-vessel operations and heavy-lift stevedoring. Where such expertise is unavailable, specialist review should be arranged.
- A forwarder should not intervene ambiguously in rigging or operational decisions without the necessary expertise, as doing so may obscure the agreed allocation of operational responsibility.
- Even where the forwarder does not control cargo handling, it should verify cargo-information revision control, the competence of the shipowner's stevedoring arrangements and the incident-reporting process.
- In a personal-injury incident, an enquiry must be distinguished from a formal compensation claim.
- The absence of a claim against the forwarder does not establish that the injured worker received no compensation.
- Serious incidents should be notified to insurers and counsel before any formal demand, and no unconditional admission should be made before the contracts and command structure are reviewed.
Summary
This case involved a serious personal-injury incident in which steel cargo slipped from lifting gear during cargo handling for a vessel whose cargo space was used under a voyage charter arrangement.
The forwarder was the principal contractor in relation to the cargo interest. Inaccurate weight or centre-of-gravity information was identified as relevant to the incident, although the source and transmission route of the error cannot be confirmed.
Vessel navigation, appointment of the stevedoring company and operational control of cargo handling remained with the shipowner's side. The forwarder did not appoint the stevedore or control the lifting gear, rigging, test lift or worksite.
After receiving the incident report, the forwarder made enquiries to the shipowner or vessel agent, notified its insurer, consulted legal counsel and reviewed the voyage charter, stevedoring arrangements and operational command structure.
The local investigation treated the incident as an operational responsibility of the stevedoring company. Enquiries were made to the forwarder, but no formal compensation claim or payment followed.
The compensation provided to the injured worker and the final responsibility or payment among other parties cannot be confirmed.
Similar cases require review of the specific charter terms rather than reliance on the charter label alone. They also require identification of the party creating and transmitting cargo information, the party appointing the stevedore and the party exercising actual operational control. Where the forwarder lacks in-house conventional-vessel or heavy-lift expertise, specialist review should be arranged before the shipment is accepted or the handling plan is approved.
