This case arose from a collision between the Cidade de Lagos, a fishing vessel owned by the appellant, Pescrul Sociedade De Pesca De Crustáceos SA (Pescrul), and another fishing vessel, the Andaluss, owned by Bourpeche SARL (Bourpeche). The Court of first instance ordered Pescrul to pay the insurer, Mapfre Impresas Cía (Mapfre), EUR 41,220, and Bourpeche EUR 1,600.

The appellant argued that the Court had erred in its evaluation of the evidence. Bourpeche and Continental Pescamar SL (Continental) are two different companies with their own legal personalities. Continental, rather than Bourpeche, was the policy holder and insured under Mapfre's insurance policy, and Mapfre paid out to Continental. The appellant further argued that for a ship involved in a collision to be liable, there must be a causal relationship between the damage and the action of the person causing it, and an element of fault in terms of violation of the COLREGs, so that the responsibility of the appellant cannot be presumed, but must be proven by the respondents, which in this case had not happened. The lack of manoeuvrability when docking was due to a fortuitous mechanical failure, without the shipowner's lack of diligence.

Held: Appeal partially upheld. Pescrul is ordered to pay Bourpeche EUR 1,600. Mapfre's indemnity action is dismissed.

Mapfre does not have legitimate status to claim, in violation of the provisions of art 43 of the Law on Insurance Contracts (LCS), since it must be proven that its insured is harmed by the loss. It is not enough for Mapfre to make the payment. The policyholder, insured, and beneficiary is Continental. It has not been proven that Bourpeche entered into the insurance contract, so since Continental was not the one affected by the incident, it cannot take any action, and neither can Bourpeche, as it is not a party to the insurance contract with Mapfre. Bourpeche can only claim for the amount not covered by the insurance taken out by Continental due to the excess payment, as a direct claimant of a loss derived from the damage suffered by the Andaluss.

The next issue relates to whether the claimant has the burden of proving the causal relationship between the damage and the negligent action of the party who caused it, for which responsibility cannot be presumed. The appellant argues that in this case, the respondents have not proven the responsibility of the master of the appellant's ship in the docking manoeuvre, especially as the Maritime Administration has not held the skipper administratively responsible for his actions.

The Law 14/2014 of July 24 on Maritime Navigation (LNM) provides in arts 339.1 and 339.2:

1. Collision shall be regulated by the term set forth in the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels, done at Brussels, on 23rd September 1910, the other conventions on such matters to which Spain is a party, and by the provisions of this Chapter.

2. Collision shall be construed as when ships, vessels or naval artefacts run into each other, causing damage to any of the parties, or to persons or property.

Responsibility and compensation for damage caused by the collision is dealt with in art 340 of the LNM:

1. The ship-operator in charge of the ship, vessel or naval artefact to blame for the collision shall compensate the damages and losses suffered by the other and by the individuals and things on board thereof, always those caused outside these. In the case of sports or recreational vessels, this obligation shall befall their holder or owner.

2. The causal relation and the blame for the collision shall be proven by the party claiming the compensation.

In this case, it is not disputed that the Cidade de Lagos, owned by the appellant, collided with the Andaluss, owned by Bourpeche, at around 02h10 on 4 June 2011, when the Andaluss was moored in the Port of Huelva and the Cidade de Lagos was preparing to dock, colliding with the Andaluss and causing damage to different parts of its hull and stores. The appellant maintains that this was due to a fortuitous event - the failure of the reducer valve that prevented the ship from being steered efficiently. The Court of first instance held that such failure was not proven, and that the collision could have been avoided by the diligent action of the skipper.

This Court considers that there is no evidence that the gearbox valve malfunctioned. This theory is only supported by the skipper's statements, without it being objectively proven. At the same time, it is proven that the skipper was able to manouevre the rudder to avoid the collision, but did not use it, from which it is concluded that his actions were not as diligent as they should have been in order to avoid the accident. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a causal relationship between the damage caused to Bourpeche's vessel and the skipper's lack of diligence.

The foregoing finding is not affected by the fact that no administrative investigation has been initiated by the Maritime Administration as a result of the collision. Thaf body stated that it was not considered necessary to initiate an investigation, as the safety of neither of the vessels was compromised. The failure to investigate is not due to the collision being caused by a fortuitous event, as the appellant maintains.

The repair cost of the vessel reflected in the repairer's invoice was paid by Mapfre to Continental, except for the excess amount of EUR 1,600 claimed by Bourpeche, which the appellant must pay to the owner of the damaged ship.