This was a claim brought by LLC TK Severnyi Proyekt (the claimant) against Federal State Unitary Enterprise Rosmorport (the defendant) for damages caused by the allision of the defendant’s icebreaker Admiral Makarov with the claimant’s vessel Utrenniy.

On 24 March 2023, the Admiral Makarov, in the course of an icebreaking operation, collided with the Utrenniy’s aft. As a result, the Utrenniy was damaged. The amount of the damages was RUB 835,880. The claimant made a claim against the defendant for the damages and interest.

The Court of first instance found in favour of the claimant in full. The defendant appealed.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

According to the Civil Code of Russia (the CC RF), the parties' rights and obligations may arise from a tort. Pursuant to art 1064 of the CC RF, the damage caused to the property must be compensated in full. Under art 1079 of the CC RF, the person whose activity is connected with a high danger to third parties must compensate for the damages caused by the source of this danger irrespective of fault. The person who bears the burden of the source of high risk is its owner or possessor on any legal basis. This is confirmed in the Resolution of the Supreme Court of Russia No 1 dated 26 January 2010.

The provisions of the CC RF are supplemented by the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF). The provisions of the MSC RF on collisions are based on the Collision Convention 1910.

Under art 311(1) of the MSC RF, if the collision happened accidentally or due to force majeure, the losses are borne by the person who suffered them. Pursuant to art 312 of the MSC RF, if the collision happened due to the fault of one party, that party bears the losses. Under s 9 of the Informational Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 81 dated 13 August 2004 (CMI2348), the liability should be allocated to the owner of the vessel at fault.

In art 8 of the MSC RF, the ‘shipowner’ is defined as the person who operates the vessel under its own name. Art 6.1 of the MSC RF stipulates that the incident investigation is conducted by the State body designated by the Government of Russia. According to the investigation report, the allision occurred due to the harsh navigation conditions and the negligence of the Admiral Makarov’s master. Control for the actions of the employees is part of the due diligence of legal persons (the company employers). All the actions of the legal persons as collective subjects are reflected in the actions of those natural persons who, in light of the law, employment contracts, or other contractual arrangements, are empowered to represent the relevant entity. According to art 71 of the MSC RF, the master is the representative of the shipowner on the ship. So, the actions of the master are attributed to the shipowner. In this case, the allision happened due to the negligence of the shipowner, and the shipowner is liable.

On the basis of the above, the Court of Appeal found in favour of the claimant.