On 13 September 2000, at approximately 17h00, an accident occurred on the ramp from Mols-Linien A/S's (Mols-Linien's) ferry berth in Århus during a descent of a truck and trailer with three cable drums. Two drums fell onto the ground below the ramp. A third drum fell onto the ramp between the trailer and the curb. The drums were under transport from NKT Power Kables A/S on one of Mols-Linien's ferries. The contracting carrier was Scan-Bo Transport Danmark A/S, and the performing carrier was HHK Transport ApS. The truck was driven by a driver employed by Mols-Linien, who was responsible for the truck and trailer being driven from the ferry for delivery to a freight forwarder in the Port of Århus.

On 18 November 2002, Tryg Forsikring A/S (Tryg), the insurer of the performing carrier, filed a claim against Mols-Linien A/S for DKK 102,562.40.

Mols-Linien A/S claimed that Tryg's claim was time-barred pursuant to s 501(1)(vi) of the Danish Merchant Shipping Act, which corresponds to art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules.

Tryg argued that the accident is a traffic accident that is covered by the Traffic Act. The Traffic Act also includes damage to transported goods. When the accident is covered by the Traffic Act, it is not covered by the Merchant Shipping Act's liability rules or rules on limitation of transport liability. The issue of limitation must therefore be decided in accordance with the Limitation Act 1908. Pursuant to s 116 of the Traffic Act, its provisions on liability do not cover the liability of a carrier under the CMR Act. There is no corresponding reservation as to the liability of the carrier under the Maritime Code. Since it was known at the time of drafting the Traffic Act that carrier liability under the Merchant Shipping Act could relate to cases where the accident by its nature and location was covered by the Traffic Act, it must be concluded that the intention was not to exempt maritime cargo liability and its limitation regime from traffic accidents.

Mols-Linien agreed that the accident took place in an area covered by the Traffic Act, and that the Act's provisions on liability could therefore apply, if there was a traffic accident within the meaning of the Act. In the present case, it was not clear whether there was a traffic accident. Regardless of whether there was a traffic accident, the Traffic Act's liability system does not apply to the relationship between the parties to the transport agreement here. Reference was made to the exception in s 116 of the Traffic Act regarding the carrier's liability under the CMR Act. In the same way, liability for cargo damage under maritime law should be exempted from the provisions of the Traffic Act. Otherwise, maritime liability for goods in the carrier's custody might be breached due to accidental circumstances in connection with the practical execution of transport, to the detriment of the clarity and transparency of the transport relationship. Tryg's argument leads to confusion and inconsistencies in maritime transport.

The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act on liability for cargo damage are special in relation to the rules of the Traffic Act on liability, in so far as maritime liability is extended in special cases by virtue of the rules in s 274(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act to apply to certain cases of transport on land. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act on liability for cargo damage should therefore take precedence over the Traffic Act's general rules on liability for road accidents, and the statute of limitations in the Merchant Shipping Act should at least take precedence over the ordinary five-year statute of limitations.

Held: Tryg's claim is time-barred.

In deciding the case, the Court assumes that the accident on 13 September 2000 in connection with the exit ramp is due to the use of a motor vehicle in an area intended for ordinary traffic of one or more types of traffic, and that the accident is thus covered by the provision in s 101 of the Traffic Act .

At the time of the accident, the drums were in Mols-Linien's custody, and Mols-Linien's liability must be assessed in accordance with ss 275 and 276 of the Merchant Shipping Act. A claim for compensation was thus obsolete under this rule at the time of the action on 18 November 2002. As has also been held in the Maritime and Commercial Court's judgment in UfR 1981.503, the Merchant Shipping Act's limitation rules apply to claims for compensation in accordance with the rules of maritime law on liability for transport damage, and liability for cargo damage, even though this liability could also be assessed in accordance with the general rules on compensation.

The application of the Traffic Act's compensation rules and the 1908 Act's statute of limitations on cargo damage in the event of the damage occurring in an area covered by the Traffic Act would lead to less predictability in these cases, especially after the 1994 extension of the [maritime] carrier's custody period. An obsolescence of cargo damage liability under the five-year statute of limitations would also not harmonise with the provision in s 116 of the Traffic Act, according to which the provisions in Part 16 of the Traffic Act on compensation do not apply to a carrier's liability if this is covered by the CMR Act.

The Court therefore finds that any liability for Mols-Linien in relation to Tryg is obsolete, pursuant to s 501 of the Merchant Shipping Act.