On 15 August 2017, the claimant's fingertip was injured by contact with a door on the passenger ferry NM. The claimant claimed for loss of income, surgery, non-pecuniary damages, disability, and deformity. The One Member Court of First Instance of Piraeus held that the claimant's injury was not caused by the defendants' culpable conduct, but by his own negligence. The claimant appealed to the One Member Court of Appeal of Piraeus.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

The Court of Appeal held:

1. National transport of passengers by sea is regulated via national law and European law by the Athens Convention 2002 and by the IMO Reservations and Guidelines for the Application of the Athens Convention.
2. 'Carrier' is defined in art 1.1.a as the contractual carrier, and in art 1.1.b as the performing carrier. In the case of the contractual carrier, the predominant element is the conclusion of a contract of carriage with the passenger. The performing carrier may be defined as a person other than the contractual carrier (being the owner, charterer, or manager of a ship) who performs all or part of the carriage on behalf of the contractual carrier. That person therefore performs the contract of carriage agreed between the contractual carrier and the passenger, which is evidenced by the issue of the ticket. Thus, the decisive element of the concept of the actual carrier is the actual fact of performance of the carriage.
3. From arts 3, 3.1, 3.1.a, 3.1.b, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5.a, 3.5.b, 3.5.c, 3.5.d, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 6, 7, 7.1, and 14 of the Athens Convention 2002, the Court of Appeal concluded the following:

a) both the contracting carrier and the actual carrier are jointly and severally liable either for the whole of the carriage, when it is performed in its entirety by the actual carrier, or for the part performed by the latter;

b) the liability of the contracting carrier extends to the acts or omissions of both the actual carrier, to whom it has entrusted the performance of the whole or part of the carriage, and the acts and omissions of its servants or agents, provided that they have acted within the scope of the duties entrusted to them;

c) loss or damage resulting from the death or physical injury of the passenger which is not specified in the Convention is covered. Moreover, from the broad wording of art 3.1 of the Convention concerning compensable damage as a result of personal injury to a passenger, which in the original English text is referred by the term 'for the damage suffered as a result of personal injury to a passenger', it is clear that the Convention drafters intended to include under the term 'personal injury to a passenger' any damage resulting from personal injury to the passenger. The term therefore extends to damage suffered as a result of the passenger's mental injury, whether that injury is connected with the physical injury or has occurred independently of it;

d) the carrier's liability for damage suffered as a result of death or bodily injury of a passenger due to a maritime accident in the Convention is objective, up to a maximum of 250,000 SDRs in each individual case of a passenger, unless the carrier proves that the incident was caused by the reasons listed in art 3.1.a and 3.1.b. To the extent that the damage exceeds 250,000 SDRs up to the maximum liability limit of 400,000 SDRs, the carrier's liability is subjective, with a presumption of fault on its part and therefore, in order to be relieved of liability, it must refer to and prove that the event which caused the damage was not due to its own fault or negligence;

e) the carrier's liability for damage suffered as a result of the death or personal injury of a passenger due to a maritime personal accident, ie not caused by a 'shipping incident', is genuinely subjective, and the passenger claimant must plead and prove the carrier's fault. If the carrier proves that the passenger's fault or negligence caused or contributed to his death or personal injury, the court hearing the case may relieve the carrier in whole or in part of its liability;

f) since art 14 of the Convention prevents another basis for the claims, any distinction between contractual and tortious liability is meaningless. The limitation of the amount of total liability applies to claims which may arise from breach of contract, tort, recourse, or any cause whatsoever, as long as they arise from 'loss of life or personal injury' and, as stated above, these claims include those relating to personal injury to the passenger, ie both physical and mental injury to the passenger; and

g) in any case, whether contractual or non-contractual liability is involved, the legal relationship between the passenger and carrier are governed by the international rules and limits of liability contained in the above Convention, the application of which, according to European law, extends to inland maritime carriage.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was no breach of the carrier's duty of care for the safety of the passengers on board, nor of the specific safety rules provided for the facilities and equipment of the ship. On the contrary, it was proved that the claimant did not observe the due care and diligence of the average prudent passenger, although he ought and could have done so under the above circumstances, with the consequence that he, by his sole negligence, caused his own injury.