The plaintiff, Mr Teodosio, filed a claim against the Cruz Roja Española (the Spanish Red Cross) and Axa de Seguros General SA for EUR 7,565.10 for damage caused to his pleasure boat, the Ainda, caused during an emergency assistance and rescue operation on 13 July 2016 in the Port of Mataró. The defendants argued that there was no negligence on the part of the Red Cross skipper.

Held: Claim dismissed. Judgment for the defendants.

The plaintiff's pleasure boat suffered a breakdown in the Port of Mataró, requiring the assistance and rescue services of the Red Cross. The vessel that provided these services in trying to tow the Ainda was a 'Zodiac' owned by the Red Cross, named LS Iluro, with two crew members on board. During the rescue manoeuvre, both vessels ended up colliding with the rocks of the Port of Mataró breakwater, causing damage to both vessels. For the 'towing assistance' service, the Consorci Port de Mataró issued an invoice for EUR 86.59.

Law 14/2014 of 24 July on Maritime Navigation (the LNM), provides in art 357 that salvage shall be governed by the Salvage Convention 1989 and any Protocols to which Spain is a State party, and by the provisions of the LNM. Article 358 of the LNM adds that salvage is considered to be any act undertaken to assist or rescue a ship, vessel or naval artifact, or to safeguard or recover any other property that is in danger in any navigable waters, with the exception of inland waters that have no connection with the sea, and are not used by seagoing vessels.

The plaintiff's claim is based on the alleged negligence during the rescue manoeuvre of the Ainda by the Red Cross skipper who directed the LS Iluro negligently, in contradiction to art 8.1.a of the Salvage Convention 1989, which alludes to the due diligence of the salvor. Specifically, the plaintiff maintains that the cause of the damage was the inexperience of the Red Cross skipper by 'letting the boat that had to be towed adrift, by interrupting the tow without any anchoring element, [and] by not protecting it from the action of the wind and the waves ...'.

However, after analysing the two expert reports in the case file, as well as the Red Cross rescue report, there is no evidence that the cause of the accident was the lack of due diligence on the part of the skipper of the LS Iluro. On the contrary, revealing circumstances of the context in which the Red Cross skipper had to carry out the rescue manoeuvre are proven.

First, the parties do not dispute the existence of adverse weather conditions. There was a predominant southeasterly wind direction of 130-150 degrees, with an average Beaufort wind force of 3-4 (7-16 knots), with Beaufort 5 force gusts (17-21 knots), and an easterly swell (70-110 degrees).

The cause of the incident seems to have been due to the wind and the close proximity to the rocks, since the Ainda was 30 m from the coast at the time of the rescue and the effect of the drift caused an approach to the rocks up to 15 m during the rescue. It is true that the boat collided with the rocks, due to the effect of the wind and drift, but in the circumstances, this collision was not attributable to the skipper's lack of skill.

Thus, the claim against both defendants should be dismissed.