The parents of a toddler whose foot was mutilated in a mooring incident 12 years ago have been awarded close to €73,000 in damages.

The couple filed civil proceedings in 2010, almost two years after the incident in Tigne' in March 2008. Their then two-and-a half-year-old child had suffered a crush injury when his foot got trapped under the gangplank of a tourist boat.

The child had been with his grandmother, seated on a low wall, some two-and-a-half metres away from the edge of the jetty.

The San Carlos II, run by Alliance Cruises., approached the jetty along the Tigne’ seafront, its master manoeuvring the vessel through a 180 degree turn so that the stern faced the jetty.

A crew member called out to the boy’s granny to move away as a rope was thrown to secure the boat to bollards. The grandmother moved a short distance away but the boy stayed put. As the gangway was lowered from the tourist boat, his foot got trapped underneath,

The master of the vessel later explained how he had sensed a malfunction of the throttle, since the boat continued to move slightly in reverse, and he had returned to the bridge to switch off the engine.

It was only then that the child’s cries were heard.

An ambulance rushed the child to hospital where he underwent surgery to treat the badly fractured foot.

A magisterial inquiry had concluded that the master, the seaman and the victim’s grandmother, had not acted with such a degree of negligence as to face criminal prosecution.

However, the boy’s parents filed an action for civil damages against Francis Montebello, the captain, seaman Nichola Kirof and Alliance Cruises Ltd. as well as the boat’s curator, James Pace.

When delivering judgment on Tuesday, the First Hall, Civil Court, presided by Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale upheld the conclusions reached by two court-appointed technical experts, a crucial point being the alleged malfunction of the joystick caused by damage to a cable.

The experts reported that no detailed inspection” of the cable had been undertaken in the magisterial inquiry.

The court voiced serious concern about the fact that the said gear selector cable had been replaced “before” investigators had inspected the scene of the incident, “without” court authorisation and it was “never ” handed over to the experts appointed by the inquiring magistrate.

The master of the ferry had justified his manoeuvres saying that he had sounded the horn three times.

But the court observed that steering a 16-metre boat when mooring called for a much higher degree of lookout and attention, given the reverse movement and the fact that the master had limited vision of the jetty from his position at the helm.

The gangplank had covered the entire width of the jetty, crushing the toddler’s foot as he sat on the wall, oblivious to the approaching danger.

Grandmother's partial responsibility

As for the boy’s grandmother, the court observed that she had done nothing to pluck the child out of harm’s way and she was therefore to shoulder part of the responsibility for the incident.

In the light of that contributory negligence of the boy’s relative, the court concluded that the master, the ferry company and the curator of the vessel, but not the seaman, were 75% jointly responsible for what had happened.

Taking note of the boy's 15% permanent disability and the fact that he is still too young for the court to establish what his future earnings could be, the court based its calculations on a medium wage of €17,000, awarding the applicants’ €72,840 in damages.