On 20 December 2011, the defendant transported the plaintiff's truck and trailer unit on the passenger and car ferry Baldur. No bill of lading or written contract was issued, but the plaintiff received an invoice from the defendant for the transport costs. The unit was driven onto the ferry at Brjánslækur and transported from there across Breiðafjörður to Stykkishólmur. The trailer was carrying a 40-foot high container with dried cod heads from Brjánslækur owned by Klofning ehf. Due to the height of the trailer and the container, they were placed at the back of the ferry. Such transport is normal and traditional and had taken place before in various weather conditions. The trailer was fastened on each side with belt tensioners.

Towards the end of the voyage, the ship's officer on duty noticed that the trailer with the container had overturned onto its side in the ship's hold. The Marine Accident Investigation Board found the cause of the incident to be unseaworthiness and the poor condition of the belt tensioners.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant, as carrier, did not properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried on its ship, as it was obligated to do under art 51 of the Shipping Act/Siglingalög No 34/1985 (the Act) [which gives domestic effect to art 3.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules]. The defendant was obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damage unless the defendant proved that it could be assumed that neither it nor any person for whom it was responsible was at fault for the damage: see arts 68.1 and 68.3 of the Act [arts 4.1 and 4.3 of the Hague-Visby Rules]. The plaintiff relied on the fact that the defendant itself or the ship's crew caused the damage through gross negligence.

The defendant argued that, since it had undertaken the transport of the plaintiff's cargo on its ship, it must be considered a 'carrier' within the meaning of art 21 of the Act [art 1.a of the Hague-Visby Rules]. According to art 215.7 of the Act, claims for damages under art 68 are time-barred one year after the goods are delivered or should have been delivered [art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules]. The plaintiff became aware of the damage on 20 December 2011. Therefore, the plaintiff's possible claim for damages expired on 20 December 2012, or just over 11 months before this case was brought.

The West Iceland District Court held that the plaintiff's claim for damages was time-barred.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff claims that the defendant acknowledged its liability for damages to the appellant in email communications that took place between 5 January 2012 and 20 March of the same year, as contained in a new document that has been submitted to this Court. This plea was not raised in the District Court, and is therefore not relevant to the resolution of the case.