Scholarlink

Defendants government organs engaged Defendants construction enterprises to widen the river channel. In course of construction, the construction enterprises demolished an old bridge over the river and built a new one. But, the construction enterprises did not remove the residues of the underwater parts of the old bridge. Then, the construction enterprises dredged the river and widen its channel, and as a result, the old bridge residues stood in the middle of the river channel. The deceased seaman steered his own vessel in the river and hit the old bridge residues. He fell over the rail and was drown. At that moment, the vessel’s certificate of seaworthiness and his certificate of seaman had expired. According to the MSA report, the construction enterprises should undertake the major liability for the allision, and the governmental organs minor one. Claimants heirs of the deceased seaman sued Defendants for statutory compensation of his death. The court held that (i) Defendants should undertake the major liability for the casualty, as the existence of underwater obstacle was the main cause of the allision and the death of seaman. Pursuant to the legal regulations, the construction enterprises should promptly remove any temporary structure and its residuals which may impede the navigational conditions of the channel. In this case, however, the construction enterprises did not remove the underwater residuals of the old bridge when demolishing it or building the new bridge, which harmed the safety of navigation. Further, the governmental organs failed to take proper measures to administrate or maintain navigable conditions of the chancel according to the relevant rules, after the channel of the river was dredged and widened; and (ii) the deceased seaman should undertake the minor responsibility for the casualty, as he failed to observe the complexity of the nautical surroundings around the location of old and new bridges. He did not exercise due diligence to steer the vessel, and she was unseaworthy and he as seaman was incompetent. The deceased seaman contributed to the allision.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

WANG Jufei et al. v. Taizhou Jiaojiang Traffic Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. et al.

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Martin Davies,
  • Jiang Lin

摘要

Defendants government organs engaged Defendants construction enterprises to widen the river channel. In course of construction, the construction enterprises demolished an old bridge over the river and built a new one. But, the construction enterprises did not remove the residues of the underwater parts of the old bridge. Then, the construction enterprises dredged the river and widen its channel, and as a result, the old bridge residues stood in the middle of the river channel. The deceased seaman steered his own vessel in the river and hit the old bridge residues. He fell over the rail and was drown. At that moment, the vessel’s certificate of seaworthiness and his certificate of seaman had expired. According to the MSA report, the construction enterprises should undertake the major liability for the allision, and the governmental organs minor one. Claimants heirs of the deceased seaman sued Defendants for statutory compensation of his death. The court held that (i) Defendants should undertake the major liability for the casualty, as the existence of underwater obstacle was the main cause of the allision and the death of seaman. Pursuant to the legal regulations, the construction enterprises should promptly remove any temporary structure and its residuals which may impede the navigational conditions of the channel. In this case, however, the construction enterprises did not remove the underwater residuals of the old bridge when demolishing it or building the new bridge, which harmed the safety of navigation. Further, the governmental organs failed to take proper measures to administrate or maintain navigable conditions of the chancel according to the relevant rules, after the channel of the river was dredged and widened; and (ii) the deceased seaman should undertake the minor responsibility for the casualty, as he failed to observe the complexity of the nautical surroundings around the location of old and new bridges. He did not exercise due diligence to steer the vessel, and she was unseaworthy and he as seaman was incompetent. The deceased seaman contributed to the allision.