By: LaWanda McAllister
The High Court of Guyana has ruled that the pilots of Caribbean Airlines (CAL) and the ground handling staff are responsible for the collision between CAL and Fly Jamaica on November 29, 2016, at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA).
The judgment, handed down by Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry on January 7, 2025, assigns blame to CAL’s pilots and staff of the New Timehri Handling Services Inc (NTHS) for their negligence in causing the collision.
The incident occurred when a CAL Boeing 737-800 aircraft, while taxiing on the international apron, collided with the stationary Fly Jamaica Boeing 767-319ER parked at Position Three. The Fly Jamaica aircraft sustained extensive damage to its elevators, tail cone, and auxiliary power unit, rendering it inoperable.
The Claimant, Fly Jamaica Airways Ltd, alleged that CAL’s pilots, Gordon Seemungal and Dirk Thomas, failed to adhere to air traffic control (ATC) instructions and violated established protocols prohibiting large aircraft from taxiing behind a parked Boeing 767.
The Claimant also argued that NTHS, responsible for ground handling and marshalling services, failed to guide the CAL aircraft safely.
Justice Sewnarine-Beharry determined that CAL’s pilots ignored ATC’s instructions to use Taxiways Charlie and Alpha to access their parking position and instead opted for Taxiways Charlie and Bravo. This deviation led to the collision.
“The admitted evidence is that if the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had followed Air Traffic Control instructions, the 1st Defendant’s aircraft would not have collided with the parked 767 aircraft,” the judge stated.
Evidence presented during the trial revealed that CAL’s pilots were aware of airside directives, issued since 2009, that explicitly prohibited large aircraft from taxiing behind a parked Boeing 767. Despite this, the pilots disregarded these directives.
Justice Sewnarine-Beharry emphasised, “The 2nd and 3rd Defendants owed a duty of care not only to the 1st Defendant and its passengers but other operators at CJIA to follow the local regulations and airside directives and to obey the instructions of the ATC to avoid accidents like that in the case at Bar.”
The court also found the ground handlers liable for failing to exercise reasonable care. Video evidence demonstrated that the Wingwalker issued a stop order only four seconds before the collision, an interval too short to prevent the accident.
“In appreciating the risk of collision only four seconds before it occurred, it can be concluded that the Wingwalker and by extension, the 4th Defendant was careless and breached the duty of care owed to the Claimant and 1st Defendant,” Justice Sewnarine-Beharry remarked.
CAL attempted to share liability with the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) and CJIA management, alleging negligence in taxiway design and failure to provide proper warnings. However, the court rejected these claims, finding no evidence to support them.
“ATC instructed the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants to access the international apron via Taxiways Alpha Charlie. Had the agents of the 1st Defendant followed this instruction, they would have safely navigated their way to their assigned parking spot and avoided the path of the Claimant’s 767 aircraft and the collision,” the judge ruled.
Additionally, the court noted that “the responsibility to lead aircraft upon exiting the runway and entering the apron safely to its assigned parking position and to warn aircraft operators of an impending collision rested squarely on the shoulders of the servants and or agents of the 4th Defendant.”
CAL argued that Fly Jamaica lacked the legal standing to bring the claim, asserting that the airline was a mere lessee of the damaged aircraft. The court rejected this contention, stating, “The Claimant has the requisite locus standi to prosecute the claim against persons alleged to have been negligent in causing the collision.”
Justice Sewnarine-Beharry further noted that under the lease agreement, Fly Jamaica assumed responsibility for maintaining the aircraft and bore the “risk of loss or damage.” Therefore, the airline had a direct interest in pursuing damages. The court ordered an assessment of the damages and costs.
The judge also dismissed crossclaims filed by NTHS and the GCAA for want of prosecution.
The legal team representing CAL was led by attorney Nigel Hughes, while attorney N. Ramkarran appeared on behalf of NTHS Incorporated.
Attorneys Devindra Kissoon and Natasha Vieira represented the GCAA, and Senior Counsel Robin Stoby acted as the representative for the CJIA.
