Commission of Enquiry counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, said the inevitable conclusion of the evidence presented during the enquiry was that the earliest hours after the incident on February 25, last year, when rescue would have been possible, were squandered by Paria Fuel Trading Company.

Speaking during his three-and-a-half-hour closing statement before the commission on Friday, he said Paria had a non-delegable duty of care to the contractors it had employed.

“Paria’s permit to work (PTW) is part of the contractual terms and obligations and is binding on them. The PTW rules are also consistent with Paria’s obligations at common law, having regard to the inherently dangerous conditions at Paria’s site, a non-delegable duty in common law. The expression of non-delegable duties of care is commonly used to refer to duties not merely to take personal care to performing a given function but to ensure that care is taken.

“Such a non-delegable duty arises where the employer employs an independent contractor to execute inherently dangerous work from which, in the natural course of things, injurious consequences must be expected to arise unless measures are adopted to prevent such consequences.

"In such consequences, the employer, Paria, cannot relieve itself of its responsibility by proving it had delegated the performance to a contractor to do the work, however competent the contractor may be. Or even if the employer regards the contractor as a specialist contractor, where the work which the independent contractor is employed to do is inherently dangerous unless done with proper precautions. The employer is responsible to anyone who sustains injury in consequence of the manner in which the work is done.”

He noted that Clause 5.1 of the PTW said the applicant shall be responsible for the job and the safety of the people who work on the job and added, “not only people who are employed with Paria.”

Maharaj said this duty of care extended to Paria ensuring that the method statement and other documents submitted by LMCS featured all possible scenarios, and the company should have hired competent experts to review the documents rather than relying solely on the contractor’s expertise.

“It is undisputed that Paria accepted the documents submitted by LMCS. It is no defence to say they didn’t have the knowledge to review them, but indeed their duty of care meant they should have hired an expert to review them.”

Paria did not properly supervise LMCS

He said Paria also failed in its duty of care by not assigning competent people with the relevant qualifications and training to supervise the works being carried by LMCS. He said while Paria would claim that the job of the site authority was delegated to another employee, it could not say it wasn't responsible by delegating it to another incompetent person.

He said it was clear that Paria’s obligation to supervise was not fulfilled as the person assigned to this duty, Houston Marjadsingh, did