Seatrium and employee acquitted of charges over device maintenance in worker’s death

SINGAPORE – Offshore and marine firm Seatrium and one of its employees have been acquitted of charges related to the maintenance of a lifting device, from which a worker fell to his death in 2019.

In a judgment dated March 12, District Judge Eddy Tham found that the prosecution had “clearly failed” to establish critical elements of the charges against Seatrium and Mr Chew Woon Kek, who was an assistant marine manager in the company.

The judge ordered a discharge amounting to an acquittal, without calling for the defence to enter its case.

Seatrium had been charged with failing to take measures to ensure that its machinery was kept safe and without risks to others. The firm was said to have failed to properly maintain a dock arm, which is a lifting device used as support during welding, sandblasting, painting or maintenance on a ship’s hull.

Mr Chew was charged with committing a negligent act that endangered the safety and health of others by failing to properly maintain the dock arm.

Judge Tham said the prosecution did manage to provide some evidence to show that there were some internal components of the dock arm which had sustained degradation due to prolonged usage.

However, he noted that what was missing in the evidence was how this would affect the safety of the people on the premises during the operation of the dock arm in such condition.

According to the judgment, Seatrium had been awarded a contract to carry out repair works on the commercial passenger vessel Carnival Splendor, which was berthed at Sembawang Marine Admiralty Yard.

Seatrium engaged Lai Woon Construction to carry out painting works and to operate the dock arm.

On Nov 21, 2019, a Seatrium foreman instructed a supervisor from Lai Woon Construction to paint areas on the external hull of Carnival Splendor that had burn marks.

The supervisor then told Mr Sarkar Milon Chandra, 29, to do the painting and instructed another worker to operate the dock arm.

Mr Sarkar stepped onto the boom platform of the lifting device and hooked his harness onto its railings before the boom was raised towards the forward starboard hull side of the vessel.

The boom platform then suddenly collapsed, causing Mr Sarkar to fall about 26m to the bottom of the dock together with the platform.

Mr Sarkar was found lying face down on the platform, with his left leg twisted.

He was taken to Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, but died later that day from multiple injuries consistent with a fall from height.

During the trial, the Ministry of Manpower prosecutors relied on expert reports submitted by a technology and services company engaged to conduct a forensic engineering assessment on the collapsed dock arm to support its case.

The company’s expert witnesses found that during the incident, disintegrated bearings and a misaligned hydraulic cylinder had caused the piston rod to buckle, leading to the collapse of the boom.

They also found that the inherent wear and damage in the dock arm had worsened over a prolonged period of usage in the absence of thorough maintenance and checks.

However, Judge Tham said the expert witnesses admitted they had failed to test a safety valve, which one of them said would have prevented the piston rod from buckling, even if there had been a lack of maintenance.

The judge noted there was no evidence adduced showing that anyone had tampered with the safety valve or that it was not in proper working condition.

“It was therefore not surprising that after the expert witnesses have testified, that the prosecution decided to amend the charges to remove the link between the lack of proper maintenance and the collapse of the dock arm,” the judge said.

In the absence of any other evidence, Judge Tham said the court should not be invited to speculate or infer that safety and health issues would have arisen from the use of the dock arm.

He said that the degradation and wearing out of the bearings would no doubt have caused additional pressure on the piston rod, as it would be common sense that such bearings function to make rotation of the joints of the dock arm smoother.

“However, just because it might lead to some inefficiency, such reduced optimal performance could not objectively mean that it would pose danger or health risk to the users.

“It would not amount to a reasonable inference,” he added.