Analysis of case study - Essay Example

It should also be expected that being trained professionals, crew members in these large vessels are expedient enough to do some of the quotidian tasks that they are well trained for. However, it is paradoxical to note that these professionals, expected to help in the case of a disaster, actually end up causing the disasters themselves through their negligent acts. This was certainly the case with the Soaring Albatross which shall be at the center of our study in this paper. I shall endeavor to identify the legal issues and analyze them in the context of this tragedy.

The first legal issue that is presented by this tragedy has to do with gross negligence. This negligence happened on three levels in the case of the Soaring Albatross. There were negligence on the part of the crew, negligence on the part of the owners, and finally negligence on the part of the authorities i.e. the Financial Services authority. All this contributed directly to the tragedy (Anon 2000). In specific, to use the words of a judge delivering a ruling on another ferry incident, the crew seemed to suffer ‘a disease of sloppiness’.

In any workplace there are respective responsibilities that are assigned to each person. This might be called specialization or even more simply the division of labor. The same case applies to a ferry. First there is a captain, there is a First Officer and crew members among several other professionals who might not be very relevant to the current paper (Anon 1987). The negligence on the part of the crew is astounding. The minimum expectance on the part of the crew is to ensure that their core and basic responsibilities are tended to.

These include cleaning, but even more poignant in this case, closing the bow doors. This was the responsibility of the assistant boatswain, Michael Smith. However, he was asleep when the harbor-stations call sounded. In this case, there is what is called standing in for someone when they are not able to discharge their duties as they are expected (Mandaraka-Sheppard 2001). The person who was expected to step into these shoes was Thomas Johnson. However, he failed to do so because it was not his duty.

On the face of it, this seems like a plausible excuse. However, when you begin to appreciate that his decision whether to close the doors or not had a bearing on peoples a life, including his own, the folly in his decision is clear for all to see. This is indeed is a level of negligence that borders on defiance. Being the last person on the G-deck, he should first have ensured that all was catered for since he was the boatswain. However, it does not stop there. There are several hierarchies in a ferry.

Before the ferry set sail, the First officer, Jane Davis, according to the law is supposed to stay on deck until all the doors are closed. She did not do this since she assumed that Michael Smith had already done so. Finally, in as far as the negligence of the crew is concerned; there is negligence on the part of the captain. The captain assumed that all doors were secured owing to his poor vantage point, and also to the fact that the ship’s design and absence of lights at the wheelhouse made it impossible to view them.

Considering the number of tragedies that have happened owing exactly to the reasons given above, the captain should at least have done his due diligence before he set off. He should have learnt from the failure of others (Hughes 1999). Next, I shall look at negligence