Daniel Williams v Harbour Tours Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Peterson, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: TT 2026 HC 74
• Year: 2026
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV 2019-05082

Daniel Williams

and

Harbour Tours Limited

Peterson, J.

Suit No.: CV 2019-05082

High Court

Ms. Vanessa Gopaul, instructed by Ms. Tamilee Budhu, Attorneys at Law, on behalf of the Claimant.

Mr. Farees Hosein, instructed by Mr. Richard Freeman, Attorneys at Law, on behalf of the Defendant.

Peterson, J.

1 This case involves a Claimant seeking damages for personal injuries and losses as a result of an incident which occurred on 24 February 2017 (“the incident”) while the Claimant was in the employ of the Defendant as a deckhand on the MV Harbour Master.

2 By Claim Form and Statement of Case filed on 12 December 2019, the Claimant sought the following reliefs:

• i. Damages for personal injuries and consequential losses suffered by the Claimant while in the employ of the Defendant and as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of the Defendant, its servants and/or agents on or about 24 February 2017 in the coastal waters in the vicinity of Cocorite, Port of Spain.

• ii. Interest on damages at such rate and for such period as this Honourable Court deems fit.

• iii. Costs.

• iv. Such further and/or other relief that the Court deems just.

3 The Defendant is a company which carries on the business of a boat cruise operator and manages/operates/hosts party cruises on the MV Harbour Master (hereinafter called “the Vessel”).

4 By its Amended Defence filed on 22 June 2020, the Defendant denied negligence and states that it provided a safe place of work and a safe system of work for the Claimant. The Defendant's position is that the incident of 24 February 2017 was wholly caused or contributed to by the Claimant's own negligence.

ISSUES

5 The following issues arose for the Court's determination:

• i. Whether the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant, and if so, the extent of the duty of care;

• ii. Whether the Defendant breached its duty of care to the Claimant?

  • a. Did the Defendant have a Standard Operating Procedure in place at the time of the incident?

• iii. If the Defendant did breach its duty of care to the Claimant, whether such breach of duty was responsible for the Claimant's injury.

  • i. Did the Claimant suffer injury and/or loss?

  • ii. Do issues of contributory negligence arise?

  • iv. Whether damages are payable to the Claimant by the Defendant and if so, what quantum of damages is merited?

ORDER

6. After consideration of the evidence, the submissions of both parties and the law, the Court made a finding that, on a balance of probabilities, the Claimant has proven that the Defendant is liable as claimed. The Court makes the following orders:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

• 1. There be judgment for the Claimant against the Defendant.

• 2. The Defendant to pay the Claimant general damages in the sum of $640,000.00, inclusive of pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

• 3. The Defendant to pay the Claimant special damages in the sum of $3,690,424.81, comprising:

  • a. $108,000.00 for loss of earnings from 24 February 2017 to 31 March 2019;

  • b. $81,600.00 for loss of earnings from 1 June 2019 to 19 February 2025;

  • c. $4,071.28 being the balance of the sum of $51,365.11 for ancillary medical expenses owed to West Shore Medical Private Hospital;

  • d. The sum of $100,800.00 as future loss of earnings;

  • e. $2,310,000.00 as the cost for three replacements of the over-the-knee water-resistant prosthetic;

  • f. $499,141.64 as the cost for a regular prosthetic and two replacements;

  • g. $586,811.89 as the costs of servicing the prosthetics;

• 4. The Defendant to pay the Claimant interest on general damages at a rate of 2.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Claim Form to 19 February 2025;

• 5. The Defendant to pay the Claimant interest on special damages at a rate of 1.25% per annum from the date of the filing of the Claim Form to 19 February 2025;

• 6. The Defendant to pay into Court for the benefit of West Shore Medical Private Hospital the sum of $47,293.83 in the name of the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The Registrar to place same in an interest-bearing account;

• 7. The Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs on the prescribed scale for a claim valued at $4,377,718.64.

• 8. The Defendant to pay the costs of the Claimant's expert witness in a sum to be determined by the Court upon presentation to the Court under cover of notice of a contemporaneous receipt.

THE CLAIMANT'S CASE

7 The Claimant's case is that the Defendant owed him a non-delegable duty to take reasonable care for his safety, in particular by:

• i) Providing and maintaining a safe place of work;

• ii) Establishing and implementing a safe system of work;

• iii) Providing and maintaining proper plant and equipment;

• iv) Employing qualified and competent employees and/or contractors; and

• v) Not exposing the Claimant to a risk of damage or injury of which the Defendant knew or ought to have known.

8 The Claimant further contends that the Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions/inactions of its employees, namely the Captain of the Vessel, who was in control of the Vessel at the time of the incident.

9 The Claimant states that on 24 February 2017, he was instructed to report to work by the Defendant on his day off. He complied and boarded the Vessel to perform his duties as a deckhand. Though the Vessel was equipped with two engines, on the day of the incident, one of the engines was not used at all.

10 One of the Claimant's duties as deckhand was to attach ropes from the Vessel to a mooring structure known as the dolphin. In order to perform this duty, the Claimant was required to climb over the guardrails of the Vessel and jump onto the dolphin.

11 On 24 February 2017, the Claimant positioned himself over the guardrails. The Vessel then lurched, and the Claimant was thrown onto the dolphin. The Vessel pinned the Claimant's legs against the dolphin.

12 The Claimants' legs remained pinned between the Vessel and the dolphin for several minutes before the Captain manoeuvred the Vessel to release the Claimant's legs.

13 The Claimant states there was no means by which to alert the Captain immediately, other than shouting to him from the deck. At the time of the incident, music was being played loudly on the Vessel.

14 The Claimant particularised the Defendant's negligence as follows:

• a) Failing to ensure that the Vessel had two fully functioning engines before causing or allowing same to be operated and/or before operating same.

• b) Causing or allowing the Vessel to be operated and/or operating the Vessel with only one functioning engine when the Defendant knew/ought to have known it was unsafe to do so.

• c) Operating the Vessel in such a manner so as to cause it to lurch or to make sudden movements.

• d) Failing to prevent and/or minimise the risk of the Vessel lurching and/or making any sudden movements while in operation and/or mooring.

• e) Failing to operate and/or moor the Vessel in a safe manner.

• f) Operating and/or causing the Vessel to be operated when it was unsafe to do so.

• g) Failing to alert and/or warn the Claimant of the risk of any sudden movements by the Vessel while in operation or mooring.

• h) Failing to protect and/or safeguard the Claimant from the risk of any sudden movements by the Vessel while in operation and/or mooring.

• i) Failing to provide the Claimant with a safe means of access to the dolphin.

• j) Failure to have any or any adequate system in place to alert the Captain of the Vessel of the proximity of the Vessel to the dolphin.

• k) Failure to provide any or any adequate or effective communication system or protocol in place between the Captain and the deckhands.

• l) Failing to provide the Captain and the deckhands with devices so as to enable immediate and effective communication between them.

• m) Failing to reduce or turn off the volume of the music of the Vessel while mooring, given the limited means by which deckhands could communicate with the Captain.

• n) Failing to have any or any adequate system or protocol in place to respond to medical emergencies.

• o) Failing to take any or any adequate precautions for the safety of the Claimant while he was carrying out his duties.

• p) Exposing the Claimant to a risk of damage or injury which the Defendant/its servants/agents knew or ought to have known.

15 The Claimant relied on his own evidence and the expert evidence of Paul Solomon, Marine Pilot.

THE DEFENDANT'S CASE

16 The Defendant denies any negligence on its part. By its Amended Defence filed on 22 June 2020, the Defendant states:

• i. The Claimant was hired for his level of certification in Basic Seaman Training, Boat Master III, Advanced Fire Fighting and Coastal Navigation in addition to his experience working as a deckhand on a private yacht for a year.

• ii. The Claimant worked on 56 cruises prior to the incident, incident-free.

• iii. The Claimant owed a duty of care for his own safety, which he breached and the Claimant was required to undertake his duties and functions in a safe and workmanlike manner.

• iv. The Vessel returned to shore at 4:40 p.m. when the tide was falling and when winds were at approximately 20 knots.

• v. The Vessel is equipped with two engines, and one of the engines was not in service at the material time. However, this did not impact the vessel's seaworthiness.

• vi. The conditions at sea were safe for travel and for the Claimant to carry out his duties in docking the Vessel.

• vii. The Vessel was staffed with trained and experienced personnel able to assess the function of the Vessel and ensure the safety of passengers.

• viii. The Captain of the vessel made the ultimate decision on the seaworthiness of the Vessel.

17 The Defendant asserts that the Standard Operating Procedure for tying the ropes from the Vessel to the dolphin was as follows:

• i) Upon the Vessel approaching the dock, the sound engineer would lower the music and turn off...