High Court finds CAL, airport handlers liable for 2016 collision at CJIA

Jan 08, 2025 News

---

Kaieteur News- The High Court, on Tuesday, ruled that Caribbean Airlines Limited (CAL) and the New Timehri Handling Services are liable for that airline’s collision with Fly Jamaica in 2016.

Fly Jamaica, in its claim, said that its aircraft was parked in its assigned place at the passenger disembarkation area of the international apron of the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) runway on November 29, 2016, when it was struck by a CAL aircraft.

Fly Jamaica (the Claimant) asserted that CAL’s aircraft was taxiing along the taxiway of the international apron, behind the Claimant’s aircraft when the collision occurred.

The claimant had filed the instant claim seeking inter alia general and special damages for damage and loss suffered as a result of the negligent actions of the 2nd and 3^rd defendants, who were piloting CAL’S aircraft at the time of the collision and who were servants and/or agents of CAL, as well as the Marshals/Ground Crew, who were servants and/or agents of the airport handling company.

During the case, the claimant had reasoned that the negligence of Gordon Seemungal and Dirk Thomas, pilots of CAL, as well as the airport handling company is liable for the damages and loss suffered by Fly Jamaica as a result of the accident.

Fly Jamaica, in its claim, asked the court to specifically find the aircraft operators at CAL liable for failing to keep proper look out and heed the presence of the claimant’s Aircraft; failing to heed the instructions of the air traffic control at the CJIA  and ignoring and disobeying those instructions; failing to heed the instructions of the ground crew/marshals at the CJIA;  ignoring and disobeying the standing regulation in effect at the CJIA prohibiting large aircraft such as CAL’s aircraft from taxiing behind the claimant’s aircraft when the latter is parked on the international apron; taxiing the CAL’s aircraft along the international apron behind and in the vicinity of the parked claimant’s Aircraft without ensuring it was safe to do so.

In response to the lawsuit, CAL while admitting to the claimant’s version of events regarding the collision, denied culpability for the negligence claim. CAL contended that the incident was caused by the negligence of three parties i.e. the airport handlers, the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) and Cheddi Jagan Airport Authority (CJAA).

CAL argued that the airport handlers were not its agent, nor did it act on its behalf at the time of the accident. According to CAL, the CJIA, an internationally accredited airport was at all material times under the management and control of the CJAA, which exercised sole responsibility for the management and operations of the airport.

Further, the CAL argued that GCAA was charged with the responsibility for the regulations of the CJIA, inclusive of issuance of rules, regulations, instructions and directions for the safe and proper operations of the airport, in compliance with international safety standards, guidelines and practices issued by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

CAL asserted that the GCAA is responsible for the regular inspection of the facilities at the CJIA as well as ensuring compliance with international standards. CAL posited that at all material times the GCAA and/or the CJIA were responsible for the placement of the apron taxiing centrelines, the designation and identification of parking spots and for the allocation of the parking positions for aircrafts which utilised the CJIA.

In its pleadings, CAL noted that the GCAA and the CJIA were aware of the aircraft deployed by the 1st Defendant and the Claimant.

CAL said it was its aircraft’s obligation to travel along the apron taxiing centreline provided by the CJIA and approved by the GCAA. However, on November 29, 2016, the Claimant was not properly parked in the allotted parking spot at the CJIA.

CAL asserted that its aircraft was taxiing along the apron taxiing centreline designed by the CJIA under the direction and guidance of servants and/or agents airport handlers when the latter failed to alert, warn or inform its employees of the proximity of the wing of CAL’s aircraft to the tail of the Fly Jamaica’s aircraft.

As such, CAL contended that the accident was caused by the negligence of the GCAA and CJIA. According to them, the CJIA failed to place the apron taxiing centreline at a sufficient distance away from the designated parking spots at the CJIA.

“The CJIA failed to give any or adequate warning and or notice to the 1st defendants and or users of the airport apron of any restriction and or caution to be exercised when taxiing behind a parked B 767 in a designated parking spot.

At all material times the CJIA was aware of the airside directives which prohibited the passage of any aircraft behind a parked 767 but failed to notify users of the apron of the CJIA of any such prohibition,” the Trinidadian airline stated.

Additionally, the airline claimed servants and/or agents of airport’s handling company failed to warn and/or alert CAL workers of the inadequacy of space between the tail of Fly Jamaica’s Boeing 767 aircraft and the CAL’s wing.

Further, the airline contended that the airport’s servants and/or agents intentionally and wrongfully removed the cone which was marking the position of the tail of the Fly Jamaica aircraft thereby misleading the pilots about the true and accurate position of the tail.

Further, it was argued that the airport’s handlers failed to issue a stop order to the pilots in time or at all, to avoid the collision.

Meanwhile, counsel for GCAA argued that CAL failed to make out the claim filed against GCAA on a balance of probabilities and urged the court to dismiss same with costs. Additionally, it was argued that no evidence was produced to demonstrate that CAL received the airside directives specifically eschewing large aircraft from taxiing behind the Fly Jamaica aircraft.

In the circumstances, the court found that CAL and its operators are liable for the damages and loss suffered by Fly Jamaica.

The airport’s handlers were also found liable for the damages and loss suffered by the airlines as a result of the accident.

The court upheld a no case submission by GCAA and CJIA in relation to CAL’s case against them and ruled that damages be awarded to Fly Jamaica.

The matter was presided over by Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry. Attorney Ronald Burch-Smith represented Fly Jamaica while Nigel Hughes with Jed Vasconcellos, M. Jagnandan and C. Jaikarran represented CAL, Nikhil Ramkarran represented the New Timehri Handling Services, Devindra Kissoon and Natasha Vieira represented the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority (GCCA) and Robin Stoby, S.C. represented the CJIA.

(High Court finds CAL, airport handlers liable for 2016 collision at CJIA)

(CAL, airport handlers liable for 2016 collision at CJIA)

(airport handlers liable)

---

• 2016 collision at CJIA, Caribbean Airlines Limited, Dirk Thomas, Gordon Seemungal, pilots of CAL

---