System U Co purchased fabric packed in cartons, which were loaded in containers and stored at the bottom of the hold of the Thalassa, to be shipped from Hong Kong to the port of Montoir-de-Bretagne, France. The bill of lading was issued by the carrier, CMA CGM (a French company), and named Sedis Logistics Hong Kong Ltd (a Chinese company) as the shipper and Sedis Logistics Belgium (a Belgian company) as the consignee and the notify party. During the journey a fire occurred on board in a container located on the vessel's deck. The carrier extinguished the fire with sea water, which seeped into the hold, damaging the boxes containing the fabric. The purchaser of the goods was indemnified by its insurers. The insurers then claimed from the carrier and from the company identified as the consignee in the bill of lading (Sedis Logistics Belgium), alleging that it was acting as a freight forwarder. The Commercial Court of Marseille, in its judgment of 14 March 2014, dismissed the insurers' claims against the carrier on the ground that the carrier may exonerate itself from liability due to the fire on the basis of art 4.2.b of the Hague-Visby Rules. The Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence overruled the trial judgment in its ruling of 6 April 2017. It held the carrier liable because it did not inform the consignee of the damages when the goods were put on board another vessel and it did not take any measures to limit the damage. The Court of Appeal also held that even if the fire had been caused by a third party, the carrier remained liable for the damage caused by water. The carrier appealed against this judgment, and the Court of Cassation was called upon to rule on the exemption of the carrier from liability when the damage was caused by water resulting from extinguishing the fire.

Held: Once the carrier proved the existence of a fire for which it was not responsible, its presumption of liability was reversed. Article 4.2.b of the Hague-Visby Rules specifies that the carrier remains responsible for any fire if it is caused by its actual fault. The Court then outlined that the fire had not directly affected the goods in this case, which had been damaged by water. The carrier had not committed any fault, since the fire was caused by dangerous goods belonging to another shipper, placed in another container located on the deck. However, the fault committed by the carrier which is not the cause of the fire will not affect its liability. Thus, the alleged fault that would have increased the damage for not having safeguarded the goods has no consequence in its presumed liability. Moreover, the fault of the carrier must be established by the rightful claimant, who in the present case has failed to do so. The carriage of goods in question was covered by the Hague-Visby Rules, especially art 4.2 that provides:

Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from: ...

(b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier. ...

(q) Any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, or without the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier ...

This text establishes common rules of liability, and this case clarifies its conditions of application. The maritime transporter is presumptively liable for all damages occurring while the goods are in its custody. The carrier is only released from this presumption by proof of an exception case and by proof of causation between this case and the damage. According to this article, these are not properly cases of exemption but reversals of the presumption of liability. The carrier has the burden of proof. The rightful claimant would still be able to re-establish the carrier’s liability if it demonstrates a misconduct of the latter causing damage. If the carrier causes damage that aggravates damages resulting from the fire/blaze, it is not liable. It is liable only in the event that it is the cause of the fire.

[For the subsequent decision of the Montpellier Court of Appeal on referral from the Court of Cassation, see SA CMA CGM v Sté Allianz Global Corporate & Speciality (CMI2240).]