A was on a Mediterranean cruise on B Inc's ship in 2019. While on the cruise, A used the ship's elevator, which stopped approximately 15 cm above floor level. The elevator doors opened. A stepped out of the elevator without noticing that it had stopped above floor level. He fell onto the deck of the ship with his right shoulder first when exiting the elevator, injuring himself.

The carrier, B Inc, was bound by Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents, which implemented the Athens Convention 2002 in the European Union. In particular, Annex 1 of the Regulation, arts 3.2 and 3.5 provide:

2. For the loss suffered as a result of the death of or personal injury to a passenger not caused by a shipping incident, the carrier shall be liable if the incident which caused the loss was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier. The burden of proving fault or neglect shall lie with the claimant. ...

5. For the purposes of this Article:

(a) 'shipping incident' means shipwreck, capsizing, collision or stranding of the ship, explosion or fire in the ship, or defect in the ship;

(b) 'fault or neglect of the carrier' includes the fault or neglect of the servants of the carrier, acting within the scope of their employment;

(c) 'defect in the ship' means any malfunction, failure or non-compliance with applicable safety regulations in respect of any part of the ship or its equipment when used for the escape, evacuation, embarkation and disembarkation of passengers; or when used for the propulsion, steering, safe navigation, mooring, anchoring, arriving at or leaving berth or anchorage, or damage control after flooding; or when used for the launching of life saving appliances; ...

These provisions are based on the carrier's responsibility to ensure that the ship is operational in all its parts to guarantee passenger safety. The responsibility of the carrier also includes the operational condition of elevators on board.

A demanded compensation under the Damages Act.

The District Court of Central Finland held that the issue was whether there was a defect in the ship and a shipping incident as defined by the Athens Convention. If it was not a shipping incident, the Court must decide whether the faulty operation of the lift was due to the carrier's negligence or fault.

According to s 2 of Ch 17 of the Judicial Code, in a dispute the party involved must demonstrate the facts on which its claim or opposition is based. Making a fact the basis of a judgment requires that the party involved has presented credible evidence of it. A presented credible evidence that his fall and the resulting injury were specifically caused by the elevator stopping too high in relation to the floor, so that A lost his balance when stepping out of the elevator.

Is a malfunctioning elevator a 'shipping incident' under the Athens Convention? Based on the report presented in the case, the elevator from which A fell transported passengers and staff members inside the ship between different floors in the same way as in buildings on land. There is no evidence that the elevator was used to board or disembark passengers. According to the Court's understanding, such devices mean ramps or bridges between the ship and the pier. It is clear that the other situations and activities described in art 3.5.c of the Athens Convention 2002 are not applicable to the current situation. Thus, when the elevator on the ship malfunctioned, it was not a 'defect in the ship' according to the Athens Convention.

This meant that art 3.2 of the Athens Convention applies. The plaintiff has the burden of proof that the event which caused the injury was caused by the fault or negligence of the carrier.

According to the Finnish Torts Act, whoever intentionally or negligently causes damage to another, is obliged to compensate for it, unless otherwise stipulated in the Act. The liability for compensation therefore lies in principle with the person who caused damage intentionally or negligently.

Here, the plaintiff has not established in which manner the carrier acted negligently or which obligations the carrier neglected. The plaintiff has not even claimed that the defendant violated, eg, maintenance or safety regulations related to the elevator. It is clear that it can be difficult for a private person in the passenger's position to find out what actions the carrier has taken in relation to the elevator. However, this difficulty does not change the burden of proof. If there is a shipping incident, the carrier has strict liability, unless it can show that the damage was caused by a very exceptional situation (war, force majeure, third-party wilfulness, etc) in accordance with arts 3.1.a or 3.1.b of the Athens Convention. Since this is not a shipping incident, the plaintiff has the burden of proving fault or negligence.

The District Court found that A had not been able to show that the faulty operation of the elevator was caused by the fault or negligence of the carrier, B Inc. A's claim was therefore rejected.

A appealed to the Court of Appeal. Alternatively, A demanded that the Court of Appeal request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of arts 3.1 and 3.2 of the relevant Regulation. In supplementary submissions, A demanded that the judgment given by the District Court of Central Finland be overturned in its entirety and the matter be transferred to the Helsinki District Court (the Maritime Court), if the Court of Appeal considered that the matter should have been dealt with in the Maritime Court.

Held: The judgment of the District Court of Central Finland is annulled. The case will be transferred to the Helsinki District Court, which, as the competent Maritime Court, must on its own initiative take the case into consideration as a matter referred to in Ch 21, s 1 of the Maritime Act, and taking into account the reason for the transfer, proceed legally on it.

According to Ch 21, s 5 of the Maritime Act, a claim based on a contract for the carriage of passengers or luggage can only be brought in maritime law. Based on Ch 6, the parties can only agree on the competent maritime law.

The Maritime Act's jurisdictional provisions are unconditional, and a maritime legal matter can therefore only be handled in maritime law. The Courts dealing with matters referred to in the Maritime Act are the District courts of Åland and Helsinki. Pursuant to Ch 5, s 3, the Courts in question also deal with disputes of an international nature, unless otherwise stated in art 17 of the Athens Convention.

Thus, the District Court of Central Finland was not the competent Court to deal with this matter.