Analysis of case study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Analysis of case study - Essay ExampleIt should overly be expected that being trained professionals, crew members in these large vessels are expedient passcapable to do some of the quotidian tasks that they are well trained for. However, it is paradoxical to note that these professionals, expected to booster in the case of a disaster, actually end up causing the disasters themselves through their negligent acts. This was sure the case with the Soaring Albatross which shall be at the center of our study in this paper. I shall inclination to identify the legal issues and analyze them in the context of this disaster. The first legal issue that is presented by this tragedy has to do with gross thoughtlessness. This negligence happened on three levels in the case of the Soaring Albatross. in that respect were negligence on the get of the crew, negligence on the part of the owners, and finally negligence on the part of the government i.e. the Financial Services authority. All this contributed directly to the tragedy (Anon 2000). In specific, to use the words of a hear delivering a ruling on an another(prenominal) ferry incident, the crew seemed to suffer a disease of drippiness. In any workplace thither are respective responsibilities that are assigned to each person. This powerfulness be called specialization or even more simply the division of labor. The same case applies to a ferry. First there is a captain, there is a First Officer and crew members among several other professionals who might not be very relevant to the current paper (Anon 1987). The negligence on the part of the crew is astounding. The minimum expectance on the part of the crew is to ensure that their core and basic responsibilities are tended to. These entangle cleaning, but even more poignant in this case, closing the bow doors. This was the responsibility of the assistant boatswain, Michael smith. However, he was asleep when the harbor-stations call sounded. In this case, there i s what is called standing in for someone when they are not able to discharge their duties as they are expected (Mandaraka-Sheppard 2001). The person who was expected to step into these shoes was Thomas Johnson. However, he failed to do so because it was not his duty. On the face of it, this seems like a plausible excuse. However, when you begin to notify that his decision whether to close the doors or not had a bearing on peoples a life, including his own, the folly in his decision is clear for all to see. This is indeed is a level of negligence that borders on defiance. Being the closing person on the G-deck, he should first have ensured that all was catered for since he was the boatswain. However, it does not stop there. There are several hierarchies in a ferry. Before the ferry set sail, the First officer, Jane Davis, according to the constabulary is supposed to stay on deck until all the doors are closed. She did not do this since she assumed that Michael Smith had already d o so. Finally, in as far as the negligence of the crew is concerned there is negligence on the part of the captain. The captain assumed that all doors were secured owing to his poor vantage point, and alike to the fact that the ships design and absence of lights at the wheelhouse made it impossible to get wind them. Considering the number of tragedies that have happened owing exactly to the reasons given above, the captain should at least have done his due diligence before he set off. He should have learnt from the failure of others (Hughes 1999). Next, I shall witness at negligence