(nods) As I say, reasonably easy to infer.

But I guess I'm still in the same place: this narrative is telling us the shipowner's thoughts.
I'm judging the shipowner accordingly.

That being said, if we insist on instead judging a similar case where we lack that knowledge... yeah, I dunno. What conclusion would you arrive at from a Rawlsian analysis and does it differ from a common-sense imputation of motive? I mean, in general, "someone credibly suggested the ship might be unseaworthy and Sam took no steps to investigate that possibility" sounds like negligence to me even in the absence of Rawlsian analysis.