The Stevedore, the Missing CCTV and the Earlier Back Claim

Red flags

• Prior injury to the same disc. A 2019 clinic record involving the same L4-L5 disc is highly material. The medical report's statement of 'no prior history' is either incomplete or inaccurate. Causation and apportionment of the current disability must be reassessed.
• Witness relationship. One named witness is the claimant's brother-in-law. This does not make the evidence false, but it requires corroboration from independent witnesses and documentary sources.
• CCTV gap. The vessel's CCTV covers hatch 3, not hatch 5. The absence of footage is not itself suspicious, but it means the incident must be proved by other means. The investigator should check whether any other camera, terminal camera or crane camera covers the area.
• Timesheet versus gangway log. The claimant clocked in at 02:00 but the gangway log shows no shore access between 01:30 and 06:00. This may be an administrative discrepancy, or it may show he was not where he says he was. It must be resolved.
• Rapid return to work. Working another vessel 14 days after an alleged acute disc herniation with a USD 470,000 claim is inconsistent with the claimed severity. Surveillance and work records should be obtained lawfully.
• Late medical report and no immediate accident report. A five-day delay is not fatal, but the absence of a contemporaneous accident report, first-aid record or near-miss report weakens the claim.

These points justify a detailed investigation before any settlement discussion.

Investigation and interview plan

1. Preserve evidence early. Send a preservation letter to the vessel owner, terminal, stevedoring company and clinic. Obtain CCTV from all cameras covering hatches 3, 5 and the gangway; secure the recording before the retention period expires.
2. Documents. Obtain the gang timesheet, gangway log, crane and lashing records, accident book, first-aid log, vessel deck log, port state incident report and the claimant's employment file.
3. Medical evidence. With the claimant's written consent, or by court order if refused, obtain the full clinic and hospital records, imaging and the prior claim file. Instruct an independent orthopaedic surgeon to review causation and apportionment between the 2019 injury and the 12 August event.
4. Witnesses. Interview the two named witnesses separately, plus the hatch supervisor, crane driver and any independent stevedores on the same shift. Ask open questions about what they saw, where they stood and what happened afterwards.
5. Claimant interview. Conduct a structured cognitive interview in a neutral location, with a recorder and interpreter if needed. Start with open account, then test timing, location, lashing-rod use, immediate symptoms, reporting and treatment. Do not disclose the prior medical record at the outset; put it to the claimant later and record the response.
6. Surveillance. If used, it must be lawful, proportionate and documented. Do not trespass or harass.
7. Report. Distinguish proven facts, inconsistencies and unresolved issues, and recommend further enquiries.

The aim is to test credibility fairly, not to trap the claimant.

Liability and quantum

• Duty and breach. The vessel and stevedoring employer owe a duty to provide a safe system of work. The claimant must show that the lashing rod struck him because of negligence, unseaworthiness or a defective system. Evidence of the lashing arrangement, lighting, supervision and safe working procedure is central.
• Causation. The prior 2019 injury to the same disc breaks the simple causal chain alleged. The claimant must prove that the 12 August incident caused or materially aggravated the current condition. An independent medical expert should apportion pre-existing degeneration, the 2019 injury and the current event.
• Credibility. The timesheet/gangway discrepancy, the related witness and the return to work 14 days later affect both liability and quantum. If the claimant is shown to have misrepresented his symptoms or prior history, the court may reduce or reject the claim and may award costs.
• Contributory negligence. If the claimant failed to follow a safe system, wore inadequate PPE, or was in an exclusion zone, damages may be reduced.
• Quantum. USD 470,000 must be broken down into general damages for pain and suffering, loss of earnings, medical expenses and future care. Loss of earnings must be supported by payslips and tax records, not estimates. The return to work undermines a claim for total loss of earning capacity.
• Jurisdiction and limitation. The applicable law may be Kenyan law, the flag state's law or the law of the contract. Limitation periods and any contractual notice requirements must be checked immediately.

Recommendation: resist settlement until the prior records, CCTV and independent medical review are obtained; if the claim is exaggerated, make a reasoned offer on the proved injury only.