A Norwegian insurance company and a Norwegian vessel took legal action against:

1. a shipping company which owned a Danish vessel;
2. a supplier of gears to the Danish vessel; and
3. a service mechanic company which installed the gear in the Danish vessel during a rebuilding of the vessel.

The Norwegian vessel was anchored in Thyboroen, Denmark, when it collided with the Danish vessel during docking. The plaintiffs claimed compensation for damages. The collision was caused by a defect in the Danish vessel’s reduction gear during the docking. The question before the Court was whether the shipping company, the supplier, or the service mechanic was responsible for the collision.

Held: The shipping company claimed that it was not to be held responsible for the collision and referred to the Danish Merchant Shipping Act, s 162, corresponding to art 2 of the Collision Convention 1910. According to this provision, '[i]f the collision is accidental, if it is caused by force majeure, or if the cause of the collision is left in doubt, the damages are borne by those who have suffered them'. The Court did not refer to this provision in its reasoning, but did, however, find that the shipping company was not responsible for the collision and therefore did not have to bear the cost of the collision itself. The reason for this was that the court found that the shipping company, namely the personnel on the Danish vessel, had not shown any negligence.

The service mechanic company claimed that it was not responsible for the collision and also referred in that matter to the Danish Merchant Shipping Act s 162, corresponding to art 2 of the Collision Convention. As in the case with the shipping company, the Court did not refer to s 162, but found that the service mechanic company had not shown any negligence, as the reduction gear had been mounted correctly, and as the gear was defective already at the time of delivery by the supplier. The service mechanic company was, however, as a commercial company, liable for the damages caused by the supplier’s manufacturing fault, and therefore had to pay damages to the plaintiffs. Regarding the relationship between the service mechanic company and the supplier, the supplier was then obliged to indemnify the service mechanic company regarding the damages it had paid to the plaintiffs.