Lawrence v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd (t/a Norwegian Cruise Line)

For the purposes of the Athens Convention, carriage may include transport by a tender between a cruise ship and shore during an intermediate port call. The relevant question is whether the tender passage formed part of the carrier’s contractual service and whether the tender was included in the fare or placed at the passenger’s disposal by the carrier.

A carrier remains responsible for the acts and omissions of a performing carrier entrusted with part of the carriage. Reasonable care may require a cruise operator to inspect locally provided tenders and address obvious hazards. A passenger must nevertheless take reasonable care for their own safety, so contributory negligence may reduce damages.

The claimant was injured when he tripped over a sill while moving through a locally operated tender boat used to transport passengers from the defendant’s cruise ship at Santorini. The defendant denied liability, contending that it was not the carrier, that the tender passage was outside the period of carriage under the Athens Convention, and that it neither owned nor controlled the tender.

The court considered the contractual booking documents, the arrangements for the tender, the condition and marking of the sill, the claimant’s evidence, medical causation, contributory negligence and quantum. The central issues were whether the defendant was the carrier, whether the tender passage fell within Art. 1.8(a) of the Athens Convention, and whether the defendant was liable for the failure to warn passengers of the sill.

1. Carrier and carriage. The booking confirmations and booking conditions established a contract between the claimant and NCL. NCL was therefore the carrier for the purposes of the Athens Convention. The tender passage formed part of the contractual cruise service. On a purposive construction, carriage under Art. 1.8(a) included transport by tender from the ship to shore during the cruise, where the cost was included in the fare or the tender was placed at the passengers’ disposal by the carrier.
2. Performing carrier. The tender was operated by a local owner which acted as a performing carrier. NCL remained liable for the acts and omissions of that performing carrier under Arts. 4.1 and 4.2, whether or not NCL had directly paid for the tender. The tender services were probably organised by NCL or supplied as part of port facilities paid for through port dues.
3. Fault and causation. The mere presence of a sill on a weather deck was not itself negligent, nor were the allegations concerning crowding, lighting or the route through the tender established. However, the sill was a foreseeable hazard. Its marking was insufficient, there was no warning sign at eye level, and no crew member was positioned to warn or assist passengers. NCL had a continuing duty to inspect locally supplied tenders and take reasonable steps to address obvious hazards. The failure to provide adequate warning was causative of the claimant’s injury and constituted fault under Art. 3.1.
4. Contributory negligence and result. The claimant could have avoided the sill by taking greater care and was probably proceeding too closely behind other passengers. His contributory negligence was assessed at 25 per cent. The claim succeeded, with damages assessed at £6,930 before reduction and £5,197 after the reduction, together with interest. The application to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 was refused.

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