In a judgment of 23 August 2007, the Danish Supreme Court held that the Danish National Survey and Cadastre was not liable for an error in a nautical chart.
In the summer of 2001, a man ran his yacht aground when navigating between the Danish islands Anholt and Læsø. The yacht had a draught of 1.6 m and was manoeuvred through waters with a depth of, according to the chart, 2-4 m. However, at one place the water was only 1.5 m deep, and the yacht ran aground.
The National Survey and Cadastre admitted that there was an error in the chart used by the yachtsman as an area with a depth of only 0.9 m had not been indicated on the chart. However, the yacht ran aground approx. 800 m from that place.
First, the case was heard by the Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen. The Court found the National Survey and Cadastre to be liable under the provisions of the Danish Product Liability Act as it deemed the chart to be a defective product. The National Survey and Cadastre was therefore to pay damages on a strict-liability basis. However, the National Survey and Cadastre was not held liable under the general law of tort, and the damages were consequently to be reduced by a small amount. The Supreme Court on the other hand took a number of other factors into account concerning the understanding and use of the chart, including the fact that the chart had to be read with some reservations. Furthermore, the Court considered it of importance that the yachter had departed from the recommended route and found that he should consequently have realised that the risk of grounding was high. Despite the fact that the chart did not indicate a depth of only 0.9 m, the yachter therefore had to bear the full responsibility for the damage. Accordingly, the Supreme Court saw no reason to examine whether the product liability rules had been violated.
The Supreme Court reverses the assessment of liability so that the actions and potential contributory negligence on the part of the injured person – the yachter – are considered first. After that, the liability of the potential tortfeasor – the National Survey and Cadastre – may be examined. Even though this judgment reflects a very specific assessment of the particulars concerning the yachter's navigation and grounding, the general interpretation must be that an injured party may under certain circumstances act so carelessly that there is no reason to examine the actions of the tortfeasor.
As the Supreme Court does not consider the issue of product liability, it has not yet been clarified whether a nautical chart may be deemed to be a product as defined in the Act.
For further information concerning this judgment or maritime issues in general, please contact Lawyer Ulla Fabricius or Lawyer Medea Plesner Petersen.