It is not often that court judgements are formulated so technically in nautical language without referring to an expert in every second sentence. For this reason alone, it is a pleasure to read through the text of the grounds for the judgement, which concludes the case with the file number 11 U 80/25.
The case
In this case, the judges of the 11th Civil Senate had to decide on an appeal that the defendant had lodged against a regional court judgement. In it, he was ordered to pay compensation for the damage caused when his motorboat broke free during the Baltic Sea storm surge and caused five-figure damage to neighbouring residents.
The defendant had moored in a Schleswig pleasure craft harbour with the stern to the jetty and had passed both fore lines on slip around the dolphins of the box and tied them on board. Due to the high water, the yacht swam up and the mooring lines slipped over the dolphins. The boat now drifted against the neighbouring berth, causing damage.
The judgement
The regional court ordered the defendant to pay full compensation for the damage. The Higher Regional Court now agreed and stated in its judgement that the defendant should have secured the forward mooring lines against sliding up due to the high water warning. Simply placing the mooring lines in a slip around the dolphins was not sufficient when high water was forecast.
The fact that the defendant was not on site because he was travelling abroad does not stand in the way of fault. As the owner, he had a duty to ensure that someone looked after his boat before he was absent. It was not enough to rely on a harbour master or a neighbouring dock to do this.
The justification
What the regional court and later the higher regional court had to decide was not as simple as it sounds. It is therefore all the more pleasing to see how clearly the Court of Appeal finally explained the details of its judgement.
The peculiarity of the storm surge of the century
Normally, it is perfectly fine to lay lines over dolphins on a slip. Here, however, a severe easterly storm with water levels of 1.90 metres above normal had been announced days in advance. The defendant owner should have known that this would also reach the end of the Schlei given the wind direction and that the dolphins of the harbour in question would then be submerged.
Required fuse
The judgement expressly states that in such a situation the mooring lines should have been secured in good time with stopper or weaving lines to prevent them from sliding up onto the dolphins, in order to rule out any fault on the part of the owner in cases such as this.
Required auxiliary person
The court also sets clear criteria for the person that the owner uses to secure his yacht. They must be trustworthy and capable of actually fulfilling their security duties. In addition, the owner must ensure that this friend and helper also takes his duty seriously.
Harbour master and neighbours not responsible
It also follows from this that neighbouring berth holders and port personnel are not automatically obliged to make up for the omissions of owners such as the defendant. Only if a specific agreement had been made here and someone from the aforementioned group had actually agreed to take over the duties of the absent owner would the latter have fulfilled his safety obligations and his fault would have to be rejected.
Other special features
As part of the decision, the Regional and Higher Regional Courts had to deal with other interesting questions of detail, such as whether the repair had resulted in an increase in value that had to be deducted from the amount of damages to be paid. However, these are questions that regularly need to be clarified in cases such as this.
What is new is that the OLG in particular, as the court of appeal, has commented so decidedly on when, in - admittedly rare - cases such as the Baltic storm surge, a yacht is so well moored that the owner cannot be accused of being at fault if it is torn loose.
The judgement is likely to be cited in numerous insurance cases in the future.
Claims after Baltic storm surge not yet time-barred
With regard to similar claims that could arise from damage caused during the Baltic Sea storm surge, it is important to mention, according to lawyer Maximilan Lessner from the Law firm YACHT-Rechtwhich represented the plaintiff, that they were not yet time-barred. This is because claims arising from so-called "tortious liability" are subject to the standard limitation period and therefore only expire three years after the end of the calendar year in which the damage occurred - i.e. 31 December 2026 in the case of the Baltic Sea storm surge
Lasse Johannsen
Deputy Editor in Chief YACHT
