This was an appeal in respect of personal injury suffered by the plaintiff as a passenger on a seagoing catamaran. The passenger did not pay for a ticket, but the master of the ship personally issued him with a free ticket. The master and the engineer/operator allowed the plaintiff to stay in an area of ​​the ship's bridge during the departure operation from the port, and did not prevent him from entering the terrace of the bridge during the departure. The accident occurred due to the jamming of the ship's rope on which the ship's fender was moored to the waterfront, straining and cracking the fender lug and catapulting the rope, which then hit the plaintiff in the eye while on the wing (terrace) of the bridge. The plaintiff suffered severe eye injuries, with permanent loss of vision in the right eye, ie blindness, and permanent and significant reduction of the sharpness of the left eye with remaining vision of 1/10 of normal visual acuity. The plaintiff (a builder by profession who was 40 years old at the time of the incident) had a 60% reduction in life activities.

Based on the above findings, the lower Courts awarded the plaintiff a total of HRK 515,489.20 in insurance compensation, referring to arts 625, 626.1, 626.2, and 627 of the Maritime Code, holding that the shipowner was solely responsible for the damage caused to the plaintiff as a passenger due to bodily injuries suffered during transport by ship, and that the shipowner's liability could not be excluded or mitigated due to the passenger's fault or abnormal behaviour (art 632 of the Maritime Code). Such an assessment is explained by the fact that no-one warned the plaintiff that his stay on the outer part of the bridge was not allowed, ie the plaintiff was not on a part of the ship where the accident occurred because he abused his permission to stay on the bridge.

Held: The revision application of the defendant is partially accepted, and the judgments below of the County Court in Split (CMI1836), and the Municipal Court in Split are reversed in respect of the plaintiff's application for payment of HRK 158,572.50 and the request for reimbursement of costs.

The defendant complains that the Courts erred in applying art 632 of the MA, assessing that there was no co-responsibility of the plaintiff in the occurrence of the incident. This objection is well-founded. Before the incident, the plaintiff stayed on the bridge of the ship with the master and engine manager who performed the actions required during the sailing manoeuvre, co-ordinating the work of the ship's crew and giving crew members instructions. The plaintiff had to be aware that this was a more complex ship manoeuvre performed with special care because it undoubtedly carried an increased risk of accidents and danger to human safety and life, precisely because of the contact between the ship and the coastal breakwater. Therefore, the assessment of this Court is that the plaintiff, by going out on the outer terrace of the bridge at that crucial moment, neglected the due attention that can, and must, be expected from any reasonable person in such a situation.

The lower Courts therefore erred in applying art 632 of the Maritime Code when they concluded that the plaintiff, since he was not specifically warned by the master and the operator of the catamaran that his stay on the terrace of the bridge was not allowed, did not contribute to the damage. This Court finds that the plaintiff contributed to the occurrence of damage in the ratio of 30%. Following the above, given the established ratio of co-responsibility of the plaintiff of 30%, the awarded compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages in the amount of HRK 515,489.20 is to be reduced in accordance with the ratio of co-responsibility of the plaintiff.

The defendant also objected to the limit of payment of the insured amount, referring to art 633.1 of the Maritime Code, which stipulates that the shipowner's liability for death or bodily injury of passengers is limited in all cases to 46,666 SDRs per passenger and carriage. The defendant contends that the lower Courts erred in applying the substantive law in art 633.1 of the Maritime Code, linking it with art 412.1 of the Maritime Code, when they assessed that in this case the awarded amount of damages does not exceed the shipowner's limitation of liability.

This Court understands that the lower Courts correctly applied art 633.1 of the Maritime Code, estimating that the liability of the shipowner for one voyage is limited not only by the number of SDRs per passenger, but also by the number of passengers authorised to be carried on the ship. Referring to the Athens Convention 1974 and its 1976 Protocol, and interpreting art 633.1 of the Maritime Code, they compared it (however, contrary to the defendant's allegations, they did not apply it) with art 412.1 of the Maritime Code, which refers to the situation when the shipowner's limitation of liability fund has been established, and stipulates that in the case of claims for death or personal injury of passengers on board arising from the same event, the shipowner's liability limit is 46,666 units of account SDRs multiplied by the number of passengers that the ship is authorised to carry, up to 25 million SDRs.

Contrary to the defendant's allegations, the logical interpretation of art 633.1 of the Maritime Code has no basis to calculate the limit of liability of the shipowner in case of death or bodily injury of several passengers by calculating the limit of 46,666 SDRs divided by the number of passengers - on the contrary, that amount refers to one passenger and one trip, which, after all, derives from the legal text itself.

Consequently, since it was not determined that the awarded amount of damages would exceed the limit of 46,666 SDRs per passenger and trip, this did not lead to an incorrect application of art 633.1 of the Maritime Code.