This was an appeal against the decision of the Court of first instance dismissing the appellant's claim. The appellant's claim arose from an incident in the Port of Celeiro on 5 December 2010. The appellant's and the defendants' vessels came into contact while moored side by side at the port, dragged each other under, and subsequently sank. The Court of first instance held that the incident was to be categorised as an accidental collision, so that, in accordance with arts 830 and 832 of the Commercial Code, each ship had to bear its own damages.

Held: Appeal dismissed, except as to costs.

Article 2 of the Collision Convention 1910 (to which art 339.1 of the Law on Maritime Navigation (the LNM) refers) extends the effects of the rule that each vessel bears its own damages in the case of an accidental collision to the case where 'the vessels, or any one of them, may be at anchor (or otherwise made fast) at the time of the casualty'. See, eg, the judgment in SAP Madrid of 25 November 2011 (appeal 520/2011), regarding a claim for damage suffered by a vessel as a result of being struck by another vessel when both were moored in the port, which considered that the action fell within arts 826 ff of the Commercial Code governing collisions.

The next question is whether the legal consequences of the collision should be regulated by the Commercial Code or the Collision Convention 1910. It is clear that if, as in this case, only Spanish ships are involved, and the incident occurs in Spanish jurisdictional waters, Spanish domestic law applies exclusively, as provided for in the Convention itself (art 12).

The legal regulation of the approach rests in Spanish domestic law on principles of non-contractual fault, since the liability regimes established by arts 826 ff of the Commercial Code and arts 1902 ff the Civil Code share essential features, so that although the collision legal regime is inspired by the principles of Aquilian liability, it has a specific regulation, of preferential application to the general regulations.

This Court agrees with the assessment of the evidence made by the Court of first instance. The accident was not due to human error, but rather to an undetermined fortuitous event. It is appropriate, therefore, to dismiss the appeal in this regard.