Selçuk Esenyel Answers Hürriyet’s Six Critical Questions about the Girne Ship Accident

Hürriyet put six critical questions of public concern to Selçuk Esenyel, Founding and Managing Partner of Esenyel Partners, about the passenger vessel that began taking on water and capsized shortly after leaving Girne Port for Taşucu Port in Mersin. From the perspective of maritime law, Esenyel answered questions ranging from who might bear responsibility for the accident and the vessel’s technical safety to the evacuation and the rights of affected passengers.

Esenyel’s assessment emphasized that no single person or organization could be held definitively responsible before the investigation was complete and that the technical findings, maintenance and navigation records, carriage relationship, and chronology of the incident all had to be examined together.

Six Critical Questions Put to Selçuk Esenyel

1. Who Could Be Held Responsible for the Accident?

Selçuk Esenyel stated that responsibility for the accident could not be assessed solely by reference to the master or a single operator. The respective roles of the carrier, performing carrier, master, crew, and those involved in maintenance and inspection had to be examined separately. He added that criminal liability and civil liability, including liability in damages, might be governed by different principles.

2. How Will the Vessel’s Documentation and Safety Be Examined?

Esenyel explained that class and insurance certificates, safety management, crew qualifications, life-saving appliances, communication systems, and maintenance records were important parts of the investigation. Valid documentation alone, however, would not be sufficient: the vessel’s actual safety condition on the day of the incident would also have to be established through technical findings.

3. Does the Ingress of Water Indicate Negligence?

Esenyel said that the vessel’s ingress of water did not, by itself, establish negligence. No firm conclusion could be reached without examining the point of ingress, the condition of the hull, watertight compartments, pumps, alarms, stability calculations, and maintenance history. He noted, however, that sailing without correcting a defect that was known or discoverable on a reasonable inspection could be relevant to liability.

4. What Rights Arise from a Passenger Ticket?

Selçuk Esenyel explained that purchasing a ticket created a contract for the carriage of a passenger by sea and that the carriage relationship included an obligation to provide safe passage. The company named on the ticket might differ from the party actually operating the vessel, but this would not in itself discharge the contractual carrier from liability.

5. How Can the Allegations Concerning the Evacuation Be Clarified?

According to Esenyel, the evacuation could be reconstructed minute by minute from voyage data recorder (VDR) and automatic identification system (AIS) data, radio communications, logbooks, alarm data, camera footage, and the timing of the distress call. Allegations about announcements to passengers, directions from the crew, access to lifejackets, and use of rescue craft would also have to be assessed against documentary records and witness accounts.

6. What Remedies Are Available to Affected Passengers?

Selçuk Esenyel stated that injured passengers might bring claims for medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, permanent disability, and other pecuniary losses and, depending on the circumstances, for non-pecuniary damages. The applicable law and the party against whom a claim should be brought would be determined by reference to the contract of carriage, route, and connecting factors of the incident. He also stressed the importance of preserving medical reports, tickets, and records evidencing loss.

The Common Thread in the Assessments

The common thread in Selçuk Esenyel’s answers to Hürriyet is that liability for a marine casualty cannot be determined conclusively from the initial assessments made immediately afterwards. A sound conclusion requires both the technical investigations and the legal relationships among the carrier, performing carrier, ship operator, master, and crew to be considered together.

Esenyel’s comments show that, when determining the cause of the accident and allocating responsibility, the vessel’s actual safety condition at the time and the records of the evacuation will be as decisive as its documentation on paper.

You can read all of Selçuk Esenyel’s answers to the six critical questions about the Girne ship accident in Hürriyet’s report.