This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, 11 February 2010. CMA CGM transported coils of steel wire shipped by Michelin Italiana (Michelin) from Genoa (Italy) to Dalian (China) on the CMA CGM Normandie, which ran aground on a reef off Singapore. After being loaded onto a barge, the goods were presented to the consignee, who refused them. Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance and six co-insurers (the insurers) sued CMA CGM to reimburse them for the compensation paid by them to Michelin. The Court of Appeal ordered CMA CGM to pay the insurers EUR 41,029.

CMA CGM appealed, arguing, amongst other things, that neither the carrier nor the ship is liable for loss or damage resulting from the act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship. The Court itself found that nautical fault - faults of navigation and in the administration of the ship - had contributed to its grounding. By stating that this fault was 'neutralised' by the fact that several commercial faults had contributed to the occurrence of the damage, and holding that the carrier should bear the entire damage invoked by the insurers even though total or partial nautical fault is a cause exempting the responsibility of the carrier, the Court of Appeal violated art 4.2.a of the Hague-Visby Rules.

The maritime carrier, in accordance with the provisions of art 4 of the Hague-Visby Rules, must proceed in an appropriate and careful manner with loading, handling, stowing, transporting, care and unloading of the transported goods. It follows from the judgment that the goods did not suffer any damage during the grounding. The loss of the goods resulted from the fact that, at the time when they were delivered to the receiver on 1 August 2001, they could no longer be used due to an oxidation phenomenon due to the mere passage of time. By stating that the failure to close the watertight doors between the bulkheads of holds 3, 4 and 5 constituted a commercial fault attributable to the carrier and engaging its responsibility, the Court of Appeal violated art 3.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules. The mere fact that the carrier was unable to give information on the fate of the container after the grounding of the vessel following a nautical fault, and was unable to provide precise information on the date and means of routing the container to its place of final destination does not, in itself, constitute a failure by the carrier to fulfil its obligation of due diligence. In deciding otherwise, the Court of Appeal violated art 3.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The observations of the expert were that the loading resulted in a blind zone in the front of the ship that was greater than authorised, which resulted in a detrimental restriction to the observation of ships or landmarks located in the immediate vicinity. The Court of Appeal rightly considered that this circumstance had contributed to the grounding.

Having held that CMA CGM was entitled to avail itself of the exception in art 4.2.a, but that it had then failed in its obligation to transport the goods within a normal or reasonable time, even if the grounding of the ship was taken into account, the Court of Appeal correctly deduced that CMA CGM should be ordered to pay the full amount of compensation.

The judgment mentions the absence of information on the monitoring of the container and of precise information on its routing only by way of illustration. The Court of Appeal held that the damage suffered resulted solely from the delay in their delivery. The Court of Appeal was able to deduce from this that the flooding of the holds due to the non-closing of the sealing panels, which led to a lengthening of the ship's refloating operations, which had been made more complicated by this, contributed to the damage.