Terminal Contenitori Porto Di Genova Spa v China Shipping Container Lines Ltd

A vessel must be moored and re-berthed with reasonable skill and care. Where inadequate tensioning causes mooring lines to render and the vessel to leave the berth, that negligence may remain the effective cause of resulting damage. A master who decides to re-berth must either bring the vessel safely alongside in a parallel and seamanlike manner or await tug assistance where the manoeuvre cannot safely be performed without it. Alleged berth unsafety is causally irrelevant where the vessel should have remained safely alongside in the conditions experienced. A party alleging contributory negligence must establish a reasonable precaution that could have been taken in the available time.

The claimant owned and operated a container terminal at Genoa. The defendant owned the containership XIN XIA MEN. During cargo operations, strong winds caused the vessel’s mooring lines to render, the vessel moved away from the quay, and a shore crane was damaged.

The claimant alleged negligent mooring and negligent re-berthing. The defendant alleged that the berth was unsafe and that the claimant was contributorily negligent. The court determined the causes of the vessel’s movement and crane impact, the parties’ duties, the alleged unsafety of the berth, contributory negligence and the recoverability of the claimed losses.

1. Liability. The defendant was liable for the crane damage. The parties owed contractual and tortious duties to exercise reasonable skill and care when using or operating at the Terminal.
2. Mooring. The ordinary 4+2 fore and aft mooring arrangement was not itself negligent, and the weather forecasts did not require breast lines. The wind loads were below the relevant render limit. The most likely cause of the lines rendering was inadequate tightening of the mooring brakes. That was negligent and was the effective cause of the vessel being blown off the berth.
3. Impact and re-berthing. The crane was struck during the re-berthing operation, not while the vessel was being blown off the berth. The Master had brought the vessel under control and had time to make a proper decision. He should either have ensured that the vessel was parallel before bringing her alongside or, if the manoeuvre could not safely be performed without assistance, awaited the readily available tugs. The vessel was therefore not navigated back alongside in a proper and seamanlike manner.
4. Alternative causation. Even if the re-berthing itself were not negligent, the negligent mooring would remain the effective cause of the damage because no intervening cause had been established.
5. Berth and contributory negligence. The berth was not unsafe. It was not causally responsible for the incident, and the claimant had no reasonable further precaution available within the short period before re-berthing. The allegations of contributory negligence were rejected.
6. Quantum. The repair costs, survey fees and personnel expenses were recoverable. The claimed interest rate was not established; interest was limited to a usual commercial Euro rate. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the principal sum stated in the judgment, €1,546,2577.94.

First-instance judgment. No prior or appellate decision is stated in the judgment.