In an appeal case, the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig has set out guidelines on how a yacht must be moored to avoid liability should it break free during a storm and cause damage to neighbouring vessels.
It is not often that court rulings on recreational boating cases are accurately formulated using nautical terminology without referring to an expert in every other sentence. For that reason alone, it is a pleasure to read through the text of the judgment, which concludes the case with the reference number 11 U 80/25.
The case
The judges of the 11th Civil Division were required to rule on an appeal lodged by the defendant against a judgment of the Regional Court. In that judgment, he was ordered to pay compensation for the damage caused when his motorboat broke loose during the Baltic Sea storm surge in October 2023 and caused damage amounting to a five-figure sum to the neighbouring vessel..
The defendant had moored the stern of the yacht to the jetty at a marina in Schleswig, passing both bow lines over the bollards of the berth and securing them on board. Due to the high water, the yacht floated up and the mooring lines slipped over the bollards. The boat then drifted into the neighbouring vessel, causing damage.
The verdict
The Regional Court ordered the defendant to pay full compensation for the damage. The Higher Regional Court has now upheld this ruling, stating in its judgment that the defendant should have secured the forward mooring lines against slipping due to the flood warning. Simply securing the mooring lines to the dolphins at the slipway was not sufficient when high water had been forecast.
The fact that the defendant was away on a trip abroad does not preclude liability. As the owner, he has a duty to ensure that someone looks after his boat whilst he is away. It is not sufficient to rely on a harbour master or a neighbour at the jetty to do so.
The reasoning
It was not as straightforward as it sounds, a point that first the Regional Court and later the Higher Regional Court had to rule on. It is therefore all the more welcome that the Court of Appeal has finally set out the details of its judgment so clearly.
The unique nature of the storm surge of the century
Admittedly, it is normally perfectly fine to tie lines over the dolens when launching a boat. In this instance, however, a severe easterly storm with water levels of 1.90 metres above normal had been forecast days in advance. The defendant owner should have been aware that, given the wind direction, this would also reach the end of the Schlei, and that the dolphins at 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 to the dolphins using stopper or webbing fenders to prevent them from sliding up, in order to rule out any liability on the part of the owner in cases such as this.
Required assistant
The court also sets out clear criteria regarding the person whom the owner engages to secure his yacht. That person must be trustworthy and capable of actually fulfilling the security obligations. Furthermore, the owner must ensure that this friend and helper takes their duties seriously.
The harbour master and neighbours are not responsible
It also follows that neighbouring vessel owners and port staff are not automatically obliged to make up for the failings of owners such as the defendant. Only if a specific agreement had been reached in this instance, and someone from the aforementioned group had actually agreed to assume the duties of the absent owner, would the latter have fulfilled his duty of care and his liability be rejected.
Other special features
In reaching their decision, the District Court and the Higher Regional Court had to address a number of other interesting points of detail, such as whether the repair had resulted in an increase in value that should be deducted from the amount of damages to be paid. However, these are issues that regularly need to be clarified in cases such as this.
What is new is that the Higher Regional Court, in particular, as the court of appeal, has ruled so decisively on the matter – even specifying the required knots – as to when, in – admittedly rare – cases such as the Baltic Sea storm surge – a yacht is moored so securely that, should it break free, the owner cannot be held at fault.
The ruling is likely to be cited in numerous insurance cases in the future.
Claims relating to the Baltic Sea storm surge are not yet time-barred
As regards similar claims that may arise from damage caused during the Baltic Sea storm surge, it is important to note, according to lawyer Maximilan Lessner of the YACHT-Recht Law Firm, who represented the claimant, argued that these claims had not yet become time-barred. This is because claims arising from so-called ‘tortious liability’ are subject to the standard limitation period and therefore only become time-barred three years after the end of the calendar year in which the damage occurred – in the case of the Baltic Sea storm surge, this would be 31 December 2026.
Lasse Johannsen
Deputy Editor in Chief YACHT
