Failure to Train on Vessels: How Crew Training Gaps Cause Injuries

"He was trained" is one of the most common sentences in a vessel owner's answer to a seaman injury claim. Sometimes it is true. Sometimes it means a new deckhand signed a form on his first day and was shown the job once by someone who had been aboard three weeks longer than he had.

The records usually tell you which.

What training is supposed to look like

On a well-run vessel, training happens in layers.

Familiarization. When a crew member joins a vessel, he is shown the layout, the alarms, his emergency stations, the lifesaving and firefighting gear, and the hazards specific to that boat. On vessels covered by a safety management system, the company's procedures usually say what has to be covered and who signs off.

Task training. This is the part that matters most in injury cases. Before a deckhand makes up tow, handles mooring lines on a ship, or works cargo hoses, someone qualified should show him how, watch him do it, and decide he can do it safely. Good companies record who did the training, when, on what, and how the trainee was assessed.

Licensing and certification. Officers and some ratings need Coast Guard credentials, and many ocean-going crew need STCW training. These are minimums. A credential says someone passed a course. It does not say he knows how this company does this job on this vessel.

Refreshers and drills. Skills fade. Procedures change. Drills and refresher training keep the crew current, and the records show whether that happened.

The red flags

After reviewing a lot of training files, certain patterns stand out.

• A signature with no content. A familiarization checklist with forty items checked off in one sitting on the day the man came aboard.
• Training that happened after the accident. A training record dated a week after the injury, for the exact task that caused it.
• No record of who trained him. If nobody can say who showed him the job, it is fair to ask whether anyone did.
• No assessment. Training that records attendance but not competence.
• A trainer who was never trained. Junior crew teaching new crew, passing along shortcuts instead of procedures.
• Procedures nobody was trained on. The company wrote a careful procedure and then never put it in front of the people who had to follow it.

Why the company's own system matters

The strongest training evidence is usually the company's own manual. If it says new deckhands will be trained and signed off before working alone on barges at night, and the injured man was out there alone on his fourth night aboard, the jury does not need an expert to explain the problem. They need an expert to explain why the procedure existed in the first place and what it was meant to prevent.

The other side of the file

Training evidence cuts both ways. A company that can show who trained the man, when, how he was tested, and that he had done the task safely many times before has a real answer to a failure-to-train claim. The defense expert's job is to bring that record forward clearly. Either way, the analysis has to follow the paper and the testimony, not the theory of the case.

Records to request

• The crew member's complete training file, with dates
• Familiarization checklists and sign-offs
• The company's training procedures and any training matrix
• Records for the person who supervised or trained him
• Drill records for the vessel
• Any changes made to training after the incident

A practical point

Training is where many seaman injury cases quietly get decided. It is concrete, it is documented (or conspicuously not), and jurors understand it. Most of them have started a new job and been told "just watch Bob." They know the difference between that and real training.

About the author

Captain Mitchell S. Stoller is a Master Mariner Unlimited, former Exxon tanker master, and former Los Angeles Harbor pilot. About Captain Stoller