Arcadio, Lidia, Sofía, Evelio and Bibiana (the plaintiffs) claimed for damages against Armas Cruceros SA (the defendant) resulting from a collision off the coast of Morocco. The plaintiffs were passengers on the vessel. The first instance Court admitted their claim and ordered the defendant to pay compensation, but applied limitation of liability under the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 1974 (the Athens Convention 1974). The plaintiffs recurred the decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC).

The plaintiffs alleged infraction of art 13.1 of the Athens Convention 1974, which was ratified by Spain on 22 September 1981. They argued that the excess of confidence of the crew caused the collision. Such reckless behaviour occurred in the moment of the collision as well as in subsequent acts. The ship should have returned to the port instead of sailing to the high seas to be later intentionally stranded on a beach. From this act, it can be inferred that the manoeuvre was aimed at avoiding blocking the entrance to the port and preventing more extensive economic damage. This negligent conduct precluded the defendant from benefiting from the limitation of liability set out in arts 7, 8, and 10.1 of the Athens Convention 1974. The interpretation of the concept of a 'reckless act' must consider social and historical changes and the reduced amount of compensation. If it were to be determined that there was no reckless conduct and the limitation of liability applied, the lower Court should have applied art 1902 of the Civil Code (CC), which establishes tort liability. This rule allows compensation for all damages without any limitation, as liability for the stranding is supported not only by contract but also in tort. Furthermore, the plaintiffs alleged an incorrect interpretation of arts 3.1 and 3.3 of the Athens Convention 1974. The plaintiffs considered that the quantum of moral damage was too low and was set contradicting the parameters established by the lower Court. The decision also excluded damages of subsequent emotional harm or personal injuries produced directly or indirectly from the unlawful conduct of the defendant.

Held: The SC rejected the recourse. The SC asserted that the concept of recklessness assessed in the decisions invoked by the plaintiffs refers to concrete factual circumstances that are not applicable to this case. The lower Court did not accept the hypothesis that reckless behaviour produced the collision. The ship had the required crew, the master had credited experience in that port, the ship had all the safety certificates and technical equipment, and the weather conditions were adequate and safe to leave the port. The lower Court declared proved that the defendant’s behaviour was swift, impeccable and safe. The decision to sail to anchor in a safe place was correct and the passengers were not exposed to danger. Regarding the application of art 1902 of the CC, the SC stated that this claim was based on the contract of transport within the framework of the Athens Convention 1974 and this determined the jurisdiction of the first instance Court. This Court could not have decided the case if the action had a tort basis. Regarding moral damage, the SC concluded that the lower Court considered all the circumstances surrounding the incident and made the quantification accordingly. On the damages excluded by the CA, the SC stated the argument supposes a further revision of the evidence which falls outside the scope of the recourse of cassation.