Terminales del Turia SA (the plaintiff) claimed for damage to a crane used for the loading and unloading of containers at the port of Valencia, Spain. The damage was caused by the collision of the MV Direccion 000, flagged in Malta, with the crane during an alleged defective berthing operation. The plaintiff claimed against the master, the shipowner, Medglory Shipping Co Ltd, and its agent Valship SA.

The first instance Court dismissed the claim, and the decision was affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the deficiencies in the berthing operation were not caused by the master, because there was a pilot on board the ship conducting the berthing operations. Furthermore, the collision was caused because the tug assisting the ship in those operations pulled the ship by the bow excessively. The plaintiffs recurred this decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC), alleging that the pilot undertakes an advisory function on the vessel that does not release the master from liability. The plaintiff also invoked the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (the LLMC 1976), alleging that, although there was no collision of vessels, the rules on collision liability should still be applied, particularly as arts 1 and 2.1.a of the LLMC 1976 apply the same liabilities for damages caused by allision against fixed objects such as port properties.

Held: The SC affirmed the decision. The SC stated that neither the Code of Commerce (the CCom), nor the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (the Collision Convention 1910), nor the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (the COLREGs) define collision. However, that does not impede an understanding that the concept refers to a collision between two or more ships. It is visible in the arts of the CCom, as well as arts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Collision Convention 1910 and r 8 of the COLREGs. As the plaintiff’s crane was not a floating object, it cannot be considered a vessel and the regulations on collision do not apply.

Regarding the LLMC 1976, the SC held that although art 2.1.a refers to claims related to losses of or damages to property, including harbour works, this regulation has no other scope of application than the limitation of liability for maritime claims. Regarding the pilot, the SC held that a pilot is not a member of the crew and that it provides such services with autonomy without becoming part of that organisation. The claim cannot be considered under art 5 of the Collision Convention 1910, which establishes the imposition of liabilities in cases where the collision is caused by pilots even when it is mandatory, not only for procedural reasons but also because the conditions for its application do not concur in this case.