AA made a claim against BB. BB was meant to tow a boat through Hammarbyslussen in Stockholm. BB caused collisions between his own boat and other vessels who were in the lock at the same time. BB was alone on his boat. It was not possible for him to carry out the relevant tasks alone. A larger crew was required so that these tasks could be carried out safely.

According to Ch 8 of the Maritime Act (1994:1009) (the Act), BB was liable for damages for the damage caused to the other boats. These boats were insured with AA. AA paid compensation for the damage and was subrogated into the boat owners' right to compensation.

BB's estate opposed the claim for damages, claiming that the collisions had occurred as a result of an accident. BB's estate denied that BB had been negligent.

The District Court held that maritime law regulates how responsibility is to be distributed for damage caused by two or more ships colliding. If the collision occurred by fault, the damage is apportioned to the tortfeasor. If the collision occurred as a result of an accident, or if it cannot be ascertained that it was caused by fault, the involved parties are liable for their own injuries. Liability is thus distributed according to the fault on each side. This regulation reflects the kind of responsibility for one's own negligence which has long been valid in Swedish law. BB was therefore liable. BB's estate appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

According to Ch 1.9 of the Act, ships (including boats) must be seaworthy, which includes eg that vessels are equipped with the necessary devices for the prevention of accidents and are crewed in a reassuring manner.

Furthermore, the master is responsible for the ship being handled in a manner that is compatible with good seapersonship (Ch 6.2.1 of the Act). The concept of good seapersonship includes, among other things, the correct assessment of the situation, correct actions in different situations at sea or in port when the ship is anchored or moored, and not taking unjustified risks. All conditions that can affect the risk of accidents, eg the size of the vessel and its manoeuvrability, must be taken into account.

The rules on damages in collisions between ships are based on a liability for proven fault of the ship that is alleged to be responsible. If culpability cannot be shown, or if damage has occurred due to an accident, the damaged vessel must answer for its own damage (Ch 8.2 of the Act). For the application of the rules, it is not required that the vessels concerned have been deliberately manoeuvred, ie been underway. The liability rules also apply if one of the ships has been stationary or if none of them has been moved.

In order for the injured party to be able to succeed with a compensation claim, that party must be able to demonstrate that culpa, ie an error or other negligence, has occurred in the handling of the other vessel at the time of the collision. It is not a prerequisite for liability that a perpetrator can be linked to a certain person on board the ship, or who otherwise performed a task connected to the ship. It is therefore not necessary in every situation to try to clarify who has carried out the damaging act or omission and to establish that culpa requisites regarding that person are fulfilled in all respects. However, the shipowner can provide evidence that none of the persons involved has been guilty of negligence, and that liability cannot therefore be relevant.

It was incumbent on BB to observe good seapersonship, and thus to assess the situation and choose such a course of action as was necessary to avoid damage. When assessing whether a certain action, or lack of action, was justifiable, account must be taken of what can usually be expected from a normally sane and insightful person under the corresponding conditions, how great the risk of damage is, how serious a realised damage could have been, and at what costs or other efforts were required to avoid damage.

BB could have limited the risk of the collision and the damage in several different ways with fairly simple measures. The Court of Appeal thus considers overall, like the District Court, that BB, by his handling of the boat at the lock, and the failure to take the necessary safety measures, has negligently caused the collision with the other boats.