Wahine’s Passengers Were Not Neglected, Says Court

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31862, 14 December 1968, Page 48

Wahine’s Passengers Were Not Neglected, Says Court

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, December 13. The Court of Inquiry into the loss of the Wahine on April 10 said in its report issued today that there was no neglect in preparing passengers in case of abandonment of ship.

The view of the master (Captain H. G. Robertson) was that passengers should be kept warm and content and not alarmed.

“The Court finds that this was not a matter of neglect. He was on the spot, and had to cope with the actual conditions prevailing and the Court is not prepared to criticise because he took that particular view.”

The Court emphasised that when abandonment at a later time was suddenly decided on because of an unexpected development there was no time to take any special measures. “Hindsight suggests that if then the evacuation had been delayed, and time taken to organise it in a more leisurely way, greater loss of life might have resulted when the ship rolled over.” The Court said there were two views on the abandonment.

One was that passengers should have been told that abandonment was unlikely but that if it should happen they were to follow instructions: the other that had anything of that sort been done early in the day there would have been the danger of panic.

“Each view- can be supported." Special Measures i On the charge of failure to i take special measures for the j care and assistance of the; elderly and of women and children, the Court said it felt : that if such measures were to be taken they should have; been organised by the prove-! dore or stewards’ department.! Because stewards believed! abandonment would not be! necessary due to announce-! ments to passengers “it fol-! lows that one can scarcelyl blame the provedore depart-! ment for not forseeing what I in the end happened.” “It is considered unfortun-! ate that it did not occur to the l master, or to some other officer directly concerned with! passengers, to give general instructions for some responsible officer to look over the; passengers, find out what elderly people, women alone with small children, or handicapped persons might need in particular assistance and then arrange if possible, for unattached males of a suitable age to accompany these people.

“It is a different matter to < say that the master, with all:! that he had to attend to, and < all the responsibility that It rested upon him in respect! of the ship itself, should be it treated as guilty of a wrong-,; ful act or default because it s did not occur to him person-;! ally to take this action. Is “Considering the few exe-:; cutive officers available, if an t officer were to be entrusted;! with this duty, it would have 1 had to have been the purser |i or one of his staff, or the, chief steward,” the Court said.l'

The Court said it was “unI fortunate” that everyone concerned overlooked the existence of the Salvus lifejackets (claimed to be suitable both for persons over 701 b and for those of lesser weight: the bulk of lifejackets aboard the ship were of a different type and not suitable for persons under 701 b). ; “It is however, another matIter to say the master should be deemed guilty of a wrongful act or default because he personally did not think of these lifejackets.’’ The Court said the assessors pointed out that the Salvus jackets were not stowed where they were readily accessible, or in containers clearly marked to indicate their fitness for use on children. I The Court also noted that 'even the Salvus was not of much use to children. _“Harsh Fact” And it said that a new jacket ordered by the Union Company before the disaster but not placed on board before the Wahine was lost did not appear to be suitable for very small children. “The harsh fact is that there does not appear to be anj’ such thing as a lifejacket which can be used fo: infants and very small children.”

Discussing the Harbourmaster’s and owner’s actions, the Court said the harbourmaster on the information available was justified in believing that an order to abandon ship was unlikely. But when the attempt to tow the Wahine by a tug failed about noon the Court said one would think that the possibility of taking preparatory steps to prepare a rescue fleet would have been emphasised. Tire Court said it felt more could have been done by the Union Company. Office Doorstep “It was their ship and the whole tragedy was taking place very close to the head office doorstep. “The harbourmaster had the primary responsibility for assembling a rescue fleet because he had the control, but that did not absolve the company of the obligation to make every effort to ascertain the condition of the ship and to convey to the harbourmaster any conclusions reached winch might help him to take the appropriate steps.” The Court said it found it hard to understand why the company did not ask the ship for a report on its draught. “The answer must surely have been of great importance to them and would have revealed how great the danger was. “The Court and its asses-1 isors. on studying the evi-i 'dence. are puzzled and some-1

what disappointed that the naval architect for the Union Company was not called to describe what was done on the technical side and what conclusions were reached. Ship Holed

"More information should have been sent to the shore from the Wahine but on what was sent it should have been apparent that the situation, from the time the vessel hit the reef, was serious. “It was known that the ship was holed. An obvious question was: ‘What is your draught?’ “This information should have been sent ashore but was not. The officers of the company ashore were in a much better position than the senior officers of the Wahine to consult and discuss plans of the ship and other data and it is hard to understand why they did not ask for this information.” The charge against the Wellington Harbour Board was that, through its Harbourmaster, it failed to take adequate steps in respect of a danger that it should have realised. Had the anchors parted the Wahine must inevitably have been wrecked on the eastern shore. The Harbourmaster should have made provision for that contingency but failed to do so.

The same applied to the Union Company, though to a lesser degree, because the primary responsibility was the Harbourmaster’s.