# Criminalisation - Captain Schroeder



## Cap'n Pete (Feb 27, 2006)

COVER STORY FROM THIS WEEK'S FAIRPLAY - COMMENTS INVITED

Jail time
US court raises the stakes in the criminalisation trend
Is the jailing of a German ship master in Alabama a small, isolated tragedy or a warning to the industry about criminal liability?
Wolfgang Schroeder probably didn’t expect to achieve fame through his career as a seafarer. He certainly wouldn’t have expected to achieve notoriety or to be held up as a warning to others. But after he was convicted of criminal misconduct by a federal court in Alabama, other masters will be saying ‘there but for the grace of God go I.’

Captain Schroeder’s crime (see p4) was to allow his ship, Zim Mexico III, to collide with a shore crane and kill an electrician working on the gantry. He was, the jury decided, criminally culpable because he knew about the fault that led to the accident.

This is not a black-and-white case. Schroeder is not in the same class as Konstantin Spiropoulos (Nissos Amorgos), Karun Mathur (Erika) or Apostolos Mangouras (Prestige) – masters who were notoriously held in jail after environmental accidents that weren’t their fault. Still less is he comparable to Nikos Pappas (the salvage master involved in the Tasman Spirit incident) or Manolis Dimitriadis (master of Peter, held hostage in Gabon), both of whom were little more than hostages in commercial disputes.

Amid all the industry hysteria about harsh punishments and injustices, we must not forget that Captain Schroeder made avoidable mistakes, as a result of which a man died. If a negligent port worker had escaped punishment for an accident in which a seafarer died, where would our sympathies lie then? 

But if, as seems likely, Schroeder goes to jail for three or four years, it will seriously raise the ante in the criminalisation debate. 

However negligent he might have been, this was an industrial accident of the type that occurs every day in industry all over the world.

And how can anyone say that he, and he alone, was entirely responsible for the accident that cost Shawn Jacobs his life? The punishment in this case is out of all proportion to the offence, even though there was a death.

The case also sets a dangerous precedent, so shipping’s organisations need to make as much fuss as possible on Schroeder’s behalf. Even if he doesn’t benefit, the next man might.

But amid the human drama, there are several safety issues that need to be addressed. Why was the malfunctioning bow thruster not repaired? Why was a ship with known manoeuvring difficulties not using tugs in a river with a strong current? And has ISM failed again?


----------



## Bearsie (Nov 11, 2006)

Time is money and chances will be taken.
Why was an electrician on the crane while a ship was docking?
The tugs cost money, and possibly time having to wait for them.
As far as Capt. Schroeder is concerned the newish habit of beating up
on the nearest scape goat rather than addressing the underlying issues
seems to be getting rather popular these days.
I suspect that here is also some "grandstanding" of the local DA involved...


----------



## 6639 (Apr 20, 2006)

this was a human life that was taken,and if it has been proven that it was avoidable then the person who was responsible ,must be punished.after all that person who lost his life has no longer ANY RIGHTS nor,sadly has his bereaved family.It is similar to those who cause death by driving.if it is proven that they behaved negligently then I for one would want justice for my family,and I assume so would every one else on this forum.I have no sympathy for those who cause death or injury to others if it is avoidable in any way other than by act of freak accident.I'm sorry but we have for too long in this world acted too braisenly and without a duty to care for others and it is about time we stood up and took what we deserved.


----------



## Cap'n Pete (Feb 27, 2006)

In the Kegworth air disaster 47 people lost their lives because the pilot and co-pilot shut down the wrong engine. Their punishment? - they were sacked. I too am in favour of those found guilty of criminal negligence being punished but this has to administered fairly across the board.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

This a difficult matter. I am very conscious of the fact that American companies have a lot to answer for as far as saving a buck is concerned. I have worked on T-2s that should have been scrapped years before I was on them. Were the officers to blame for the fact that the ships were, in many cases, unfit for service? Did the owners not know? Ferries leaving port in bad weather with the bow doors not properly closed because of a timetable? Who was to blame for that P&O accident. The master, of course, but also Head Office staff, who must have known that tuirnaround times left no margin for delays. But let's leave the shipping industry to one side. What about the 1600NHS patients that caught aids because of negligence. Or the oil storage accident north of London last winter?

Split


----------



## Geoff Garrett (May 2, 2006)

You are driving your car along the road, you hit some gravel on a sharp bend, mount the pavement and a pedestrian is killed. Are you a criminal?


----------



## 6639 (Apr 20, 2006)

depending upon the cir***stances,your speed,the care in which you are driving ,whether you could have avoided the accident by taking more care,and/or driving in a manner in which by taking a little more care,thus not loosing control; then the answer is quite simply yes.and If I were to sadly loose a member of my family because of the actions of a driver or any worker who had not shown just duty of care to others by some reason or other i would expect that person to be treated as such.we could argue all day about this one,but gladly we are no longer living in the "old days" where "accidents do happen".most accidents that cause death or injury to others are avoidable through a little more care and aforethought,so it's of little relevence to come up with a simplified question such as geoff posted.If you are to blame then you deserve to be treated as harshly as possible in my mind.but then again I would bring back capital punishment for the most wicked of crimes to children/more vulnerable in our society anyway,so I don't think any form of simplified question would sway me from my views.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

But Accidents DO happen. That's something that seems to have been forgotten in today's HSE Fascist state. As long as there is a human element, they WILL occur, regardless of how many safeguards we put in place - and that's proven.
Thankfully (well, most of the time), the relatives of those who have an interest in those hurt/killed have no bearing on the outcome of a court case or sentencing, and neither should they, as that goes against every principle of a fair trial.
However, we're are sadly moving closer towards the model where 'there's always someone to blame'. Especially in the Maritime industry.
And they wonder why they can't get people to come to sea anymore?


----------



## Mad Landsman (Dec 1, 2005)

Some time ago I reached the conclusion that what we call Accidents are the result of someone making an incorrect assumption. It could be an assumption that you would be able to take appropriate action before a collision, an assumption that the other person would see you and take appropriate action, an assumption that your equipment is safe and working correctly. etc.
Most of us have been in a training environment when we have been told that one must never assume (Make an ASS out of U & ME) some of us have been trainers ourselves and tried to convey the message. We still, however, go on assuming things.
The Question that actually needs to be asked in the current proliferation of Civil & Criminal actions, such as this one, is: 'Was the assumption reasonable?' or in the same cir***stances would you have done the same thing? Without an outright admimission of guilt the Courts (and mabe a Jury of peers) have to, in effect, decide on what the person was thinking at the time.
Yes accidents do happen and in almost every case someone can be blamed, nowadays there seems to be a shift in what is reasonable and it no longer seems acceptable to use 'Doing one's best in the cir***stances' as mitigation.


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

A thoughtful comment Clockman. 

I would add that we all make mistakes, but fortunately most of the time they do not lead to disastrous consequences. Is there anyone who can honestly say they have never had a near miss driving a car that might have lead to someone's serious injury of death? Life is a risky business.

"There but for the grace of God go I".

Brian


----------



## Cap'n Pete (Feb 27, 2006)

For interest, this is a letter I wrote to Fairplay today; it probably will not get published but it represents my view on the subject.


Dear Sir,

In today’s digital age, should a ship’s master still be regarded as “master under God”? Has instant communication, spy in the sky systems and remote monitoring of all ship’s functions made the master just another member of the ship’s crew? Fairplay often likes to tell it’s readers that ship managers command ships and the master’s role is to follow their orders. What utter crap!

If Captain Schroeder’s negligence in sailing with a defective bowthruster caused the death of an electrician (cover story November 9, 2006) then he deserves to go to prison. A man died and somebody should be punished for his death and that man can only be the ship’s master because he, and he alone, is responsible.

Section 5 of the ISM Code clearly states the master’s responsibility and authority including a very clear statement giving the master the authority to override the ISM Code whenever he considers it necessary to safeguard the safety of his ship. Prudent and responsible owners also include a statement that their instructions can also be overrode by the master when he considers it necessary. Any master, therefore, who bows to commercial pressure of any kind or allows pilots, port authorities, flag states or anybody else to make him undertake a course of action he considers detrimental to the safety of his ship is a coward and a fool.

I have not heard of any report of Captain Schroeder trying to mitigate his actions by blaming his owners or anybody else. As a ship’s master who realises his mistake has cost the life or an innocent shore worker and he appears ready to take his punishment like a man; he is a man of honour and as a fellow serving master he commands my respect. 

If anything is to be learned from this sad story, it is that bowthrusters must be fully functional and at least as capable of manoeuvring the ship as a harbour tug. If the shipowner has tried to save money by fitting a low-powered unit or the chief engineer has restricted it’s power output to save maintenance, then the ship’s master must not hesitate to order tugs when necessary, regardless of the cost. 

Kind regards,
Peter J Newton


----------



## eldersuk (Oct 24, 2005)

Cap'n Pete,
In an ideal world your views on this subject are, of course, quite correct and admirable.
However, I have sailed with masters who were in just such positions, having to weigh up commercial against professional decisions. The master knows quite well what the response from the suits in head office will be if he makes what they regard as a commercially unsound judgement upon which they have decided entirely with hindsight.
You might say that a seamanlike decision should always take precedence, and I would entirely agree, but how many times will he get away with it? 

Derek


----------



## Cap'n Pete (Feb 27, 2006)

Derek,

You're quite correct, of course. There's an awful lot of luck involved in being a ship's master because there is absolutely no way you can ensure that your ship is 100% seaworthy or your crew will always act in the best interest of the ship. However, I have found in recent years that some masters, particularly those from low-wage countries give in too easily to people in authority, including shipowners. This has caused a climate change within the industry to the extent that everybody ashore now assumes the master will do as he is told and, if it all goes pear-shaped, then they have the scap-goat all trussed up and ready to take the heat.
Masters have to assert their authority and make sure those ashore remember who commands their ships!
Peter


----------

