Ulgener

-Gül Alpay

Introduction

The Turkish Court of Cassation’s 11th Civil Chamber delivered an important decision on 28 February 2024 (E. 2023/5322, K. 2024/1569) concerning carrier liability in cases of fire on board and the concept of unseaworthiness. The dispute arose from a claim for damages following a fire that destroyed several trucks and trailers carried aboard a Ro-Ro vessel sailing from Istanbul to Trieste in 2008. The case, which went through multiple rounds of litigation and appeal, revolved around whether the carrier could rely on the statutory exemption from liability for fire under Turkish Commercial Code (“TCC”) or whether the event revealed an initial unseaworthiness that would make the carrier personally at fault and thus liable.

Facts and Claimants’ Arguments

The claimant argued that the fire—starting off the Croatian coast and destroying the entire cargo—resulted from the ship’s defective fire-fighting system, specifically a malfunctioning sprinkler mechanism that failed to activate despite the opening of fire valves. It was alleged that this defect demonstrated the vessel’s unseaworthiness and that the owner bore absolute liability for losses arising from such condition. Damages were claimed for the total loss of eleven vehicles, freight charges, and loss of profit.

The carrier’s defence was two-fold. First, it contended that the vessel was fully certificated and maintained in accordance with international conventions (SOLAS and ISM Code). Secondly, under TCC, it invoked the fire exemption, which relieves the carrier from liability for losses resulting from fire unless caused by its personal fault. The defendant argued that the blaze originated on the main deck from one of the trucks containing diesel fuel, spread rapidly within minutes, and could not have been prevented despite the crew’s efforts.

Decision of Court of First Instance

The court of first instance partially accepted the claim, reasoning that the crew had failed to act promptly and properly in accordance with fire-drill procedures. Evidence showed that the crew first attempted to extinguish the fire using hoses instead of immediately activating the sprinkler system, resulting in critical delay. The court held that the crew’s inadequate training and deviation from ISM procedures rendered the vessel unseaworthy at the commencement of the voyage. Because the ISM manager’s conduct was attributable to the carrier, this unseaworthiness constituted the carrier’s personal fault, excluding reliance on the statutory exemption for liability in case of fire.

Appeal before the Court of Cassation

On appeal, the 11th Civil Chamber reversed the first-instance ruling, emphasizing that the vessel complied with all national and international safety standards, including valid seaworthiness certificates and properly documented fire-safety drills. The Chamber noted that fires at sea represent inherent maritime perils and that the rapid spread of flames was consistent with the unpredictable and dangerous nature of such incidents rather than with negligence. It further observed that some cargo interests had initiated proceedings before foreign courts concerning the same incident, and those courts had similarly found that the carrier could not be held liable in the absence of proof of intent or gross negligence. The Turkish court adopted a comparable reasoning, finding no causal link between any alleged initial defect and the outbreak of the fire. Accordingly, it concluded that the carrier was not personally at fault and was therefore entitled to exemption under TCC, ordering the complete dismissal of the claim.

Appeal before the Court of Appeal

The claimant appealed the decision further, arguing that the Court of Cassation had misinterpreted the evidence and failed to consider the ISM company’s deficient training as the owner’s personal fault and that the crew’s panic and delayed response could not excuse non-compliance with SOLAS and ISM standards and that the foreign proceedings should not have persuasive value in Turkish litigation.

The 11th Chamber of Court of Appeal, however, held the Court of Cassation’s decision.  The 11th Chamber stated that the vessel had been seaworthy at departure, that the fire resulted from an unforeseeable peril of the sea, and that there was no evidence of the carrier’s intent or negligence.

The decision reinforces a long-standing principle of maritime law: a carrier is not liable for cargo losses caused by fire unless the loss stems from its personal fault or the vessel’s initial unseaworthiness.

This 2024 decision marks a decisive affirmation of the carrier’s statutory immunity in fire-related incidents and underscores the evidentiary burden on the claimant to prove a direct causal link between crew conduct and initial unseaworthiness.