This was an appeal from a judgment of the abolished Maritime Specialised Court.

The plaintiff insurer claimed that its insured vehicle was loaded onto a vessel operated by the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that because the vessel was unseaworthy and the defendants failed to exercise proper supervision and control over the crew, a fire broke out during the voyage, causing the vessel to sink along with the insured vehicle. The plaintiff compensated the insured party and sought TRY 44,000 in damages, with interest, from the defendants.

The defendants denied liability and requested dismissal of the claim.

The Commercial Court of First Instance found that the fire did not result from the vessel’s unseaworthiness or the carrier’s personal fault, and thus dismissed the case.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal upheld.

The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the lower Court failed to properly assess the carrier’s duty of due diligence. Under art 1019 of the Turkish Commercial Code (No 6762 TCC) [based on art 3.1 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules], the carrier was liable for damages resulting from the vessel’s unseaworthiness. Furthermore, under art 1061 of the TCC [based on art 3.2 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules], the carrier was responsible for any loss or damage to the cargo from the time of receipt until delivery. Article 1062 of the TCC [based on art 4.2 b of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules], states that if the damage resulted from fire, the carrier was liable only if the fire was caused by its own fault.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the burden of proof for demonstrating that the vessel was seaworthy and properly maintained rested with the carrier. While the defendants submitted documentation to show that the vessel was certified as seaworthy, these certificates only served as a presumption and were not conclusive proof that the carrier fulfilled its duty of due diligence. The carrier was required to demonstrate actual compliance with its duty of due diligence. If the fire resulted from inadequate maintenance or crew negligence, liability could not be excluded under art 1062 of the TCC.

The Supreme Court found that the trial Court failed to properly assess whether the fire resulted from a technical failure or crew negligence and whether the carrier fully discharged its duty of care. The Court held that a more comprehensive expert assessment was required to determine whether the fire and resulting damage were due to the carrier’s negligence or a technical fault beyond its control, for which the carrier could be exonerated under art 1062 of the TCC [based on art 4.2.a of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules]. The lower Court’s failure to conduct a full inquiry and its reliance on incomplete evidence warranted a reversal of the decision.