This was an appeal and cross-appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, 6 November 2018. The case arose from personal injuries suffered by Mr F on board a yacht on 7 August 2005 (for previous proceedings in this matter, see CMI1222 and CMI1224). The shipowner sought to limit its liability. The Court of Appeal assessed the financial losses of Mr F at EUR 20,845.19 after deduction of the claim of the Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie (CPAM) (his health insurer), and assessed his extra-patrimonial losses at EUR 82,111.76. The Court fixed the financial losses of the other affected parties at EUR 2,084.79, and their non-pecuniary damages at EUR 2,000 each. The Court ruled that the Center Nautique Les Glénans and the MMA companies were liable to pay in solidum to these parties, as well as to the CPAM and to the Mutuelle Assurance des Instituteurs de France (MAIF), Mr F's insurers, the latter acting under a subrogatory recourse, a total of EUR 259,782.42 excluding interest, after having held that the claims resulting from bodily injuries had to be compensated within the limit of a ceiling of 166,500 SDRs, or EUR 197,595.54.

The MMA companies and the Center Nautique Les Glénans appealed, arguing that a shipowner may, according to the LLMC 1976, limit its liability to contractors or third parties if the damage occurs on board its vessel. By ruling that they were liable for a total amount of EUR 259,782.42 excluding interest, after having held that the compensation ceiling concerning the incident was established at the sum of EUR 197,595.54, the Court of Appeal erred and violated arts 58 and 61 of the Law N° 67-5 of 3 January 1967 in their wording resulting from the law of N° 84-1151 of 21 December 1984.

In its counter-appeal, MAIF criticised the judgment for holding that the compensation ceiling for the incident was set at 166,500 SDRs, ie EUR 197,595.54, and that there was no need in the present case to cumulate this ceiling with that established for claims not relating to bodily injuries. The limit of liability of the shipowner of a vessel under 300 tons is equal, for claims for death and bodily injuries, to 166,500 SDRs, and, for other claims, to 83,500 SDRs. If the amount of the first ceiling is insufficient to settle the totality of the compensation due to the victim of bodily injuries, the balance of this compensation is to be paid within the limit of the second ceiling. In this case, by limiting the victims' right to compensation exclusively to the ceiling applicable to claims for death and bodily injuries, the Court of Appeal violated arts 61 and 64.3 of law N° 67-5 of 5 January 1967 relating to the status of ships and other seagoing vessels, which became arts L 5121-5 and L 5121-10 of the Transport Code, read together with art 6.2 of the LLMC 1976.

Held: Partial cassation.

Having regard to arts L 5121-5 of the Transport Code, arts 6.1.a.i and 6.1.b.i of the LLMC 1976, in its version prior to that resulting from the Protocol of 2 May 1996, and art 455 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it follows that the limit of liability of the owner of a vessel of less than 300 tons is equal, for personal injury claims, to 166,500 SDRs. By ruling that the MMA companies and the Center Nautique Les Glénans were liable for EUR 259,782.42 excluding interest, after having held that the claims resulting from bodily injuries had to be compensated within the limit of a ceiling of 166,500 SDRs, or EUR 197,595.54, the Court of Appeal violated the aforementioned provisions.

Regarding MAIF's counter-appeal, the limit of liability of the owner of a vessel with a tonnage of less than 300 tons is equal, for claims for bodily injury, to 166,500 SDRs, and, for other claims, to 83,500 SDRs. If the amount of the first ceiling is insufficient to settle the totality of the compensation due to the victim of bodily injury, the balance of this compensation is, within the limit of the second ceiling, paid in competition with other receivables, or in full if there are no other receivables. To limit the right to compensation to the ceiling applicable to claims for death and bodily harm, without cumulating it with the compensation ceiling applicable to other claims, the judgment holds that there are no claims other than those for bodily harm. It was apparent from its findings that the total compensation that it allocated to the victims and to third party payers, subrogated to the rights of one of them, exceeded this ceiling, so that the latter could claim to be compensated within the overall limit of the two ceilings, the balance of the compensation having to be paid within the limit of the ceiling applicable to other claims, even in the absence of other [ie third party] claims. By ruling thus, the Court of Appeal, which did not apply the legal consequences of its findings, violated the aforementioned provisions.

For these reasons, the judgment under appeal is struck down and annulled, but only in that it holds that the compensation ceiling concerning the incident of 7 August 2005 is established at the sum of 166,500 SDRs, ie the sum of EUR 197,595.54, and that there is no need, in this case, to combine this ceiling with that established for claims not relating to bodily injuries; and in that it ordered the MMA companies and the Center Nautique Les Glénans to pay the abovementioned sums to the abovementioned parties. On these points, the case and the parties are returned to the position they were in before this judgment, and the case is referred to the Versailles Court of Appeal to be decided correctly.

[For the subsequent decision of the Versailles Court of Appeal, see CMI2259.]