Damage occurring within the perimeter of a port is rarely settled like ordinary damage. There, the ship is manoeuvred by a pilot she did not choose, pulled by a tug whose crew she does not direct, placed at a berth allocated by the port authority, and she moves on a public domain whose degradation falls under a specific enforcement regime. As a result, one and the same casualty may involve the shipowner, the pilot, the tug, the terminal operator and the port manager, with rules of evidence that differ for each of them and courts that are not the same. Here are the six points that determine, in practice, who will pay.
1. Identifying the port authority, and which of its two hats is involved
The first difficulty is knowing whom to sue. Article L. 5331-5 of the French Transport Code designates the port authority by name according to the port concerned: the chairman of the management board in the major seaports, the director in the autonomous ports, the administrative authority in the other ports under State control, and the executive of the local authority for decentralised commercial, fishing or marina ports. That authority then acts under two distinct hats, which Article L. 5331-7 clearly separates. On the one hand it exercises the policing of port operations, which includes in particular the allocation of berths and the occupation of storage areas. On the other hand it exercises the policing of the conservation of the port’s public domain. The distinction is not cosmetic: depending on whether the complaint concerns an operational decision, the condition of a public work or a contractual relationship between private operators, neither the same legal basis nor, most often, the same order of courts applies.
2. The pilot, a participant who cannot be sued directly
This is the most counter-intuitive rule of port law, and the one that most surprises foreign insurers. Under Article L. 5341-11 of the Transport Code, the pilot is not liable to third parties for damage caused in the course of pilotage operations. He only contributes to compensation, in his relationship with the owner of the piloted ship, if the latter establishes that the damage is due to the pilot’s fault. In other words, a third party who is the victim of an allision must turn to the shipowner, who answers for the damage even though the manoeuvre was conducted on the advice of a State-commissioned pilot. Only afterwards, and through an internal recourse, may the shipowner call the pilot in contribution, bearing the burden of proving fault. The rule explains why the technical investigation must be conducted immediately, before the manoeuvring data are lost. Article L. 5341-12 completes the framework in the opposite direction, for damage suffered by the pilotage service itself: during pilotage operations or embarkation and disembarkation manoeuvres, accidents to the pilot are borne by the owner of the piloted ship unless he establishes the fault of the pilot or of the pilot boat’s crew, and damage to the pilot boat is borne by him unless he establishes the pilot’s gross fault. The asymmetry of the standards of proof, simple fault in one case and gross fault in the other, deserves to be noted from the moment the casualty is declared.
3. Harbour towage, a presumption weighing on the towed ship
Towage follows a rule opposite to what intuition suggests. Article L. 5342-1 of the Transport Code provides that harbour towage operations are carried out under the direction of the master of the towed ship, and that damage of any kind occurring during the operations is borne by the towed ship unless she establishes the fault of the tug. The burden of proof therefore lies on the assisted ship, even though the manoeuvre is physically performed by a third party. The cursor moves as soon as one leaves the port: Article L. 5342-4 provides that towage on the high seas is carried out under the direction of the master of the tug, and that damage is then borne by the tug, save fault of the towed ship. The characterisation of the operation, harbour or deep-sea, therefore alone decides who must prove what.
4. Obeying the harbour master is not a discharge of liability
Article L. 5334-5 of the Transport Code requires every master, skipper or person in charge of a ship, boat or any other floating craft to comply with the regulatory signals or the orders given, by any means, by harbour masters, deputy harbour masters or port supervisors concerning the movement of the vessel. The obligation applies within the administrative limits of the port and in the maritime and river regulation zone. It is frequently raised in defence: the master argues that he merely carried out an order. The argument is generally insufficient, because the order concerns the movement to be performed, not the manner of performing it safely, which remains the responsibility of the ship. The useful dividing line, in a file, therefore consists in establishing precisely the content of the order received, its timestamp and the channel through which it was transmitted.
5. The port domain is protected by an autonomous enforcement regime
Damage caused to a quay, a jetty or a port structure is not settled by civil compensation alone. Under Article L. 5337-1 of the Transport Code, in the wording deriving from Ordinance no. 2021-614 of 19 May 2021 in force since 1 June 2021, and without prejudice to the criminal penalties incurred, any breach of the provisions of chapter V of that title, of those of the chapter on penalties and of the provisions regulating the use of the public domain, in particular those relating to occupation without title, constitutes a major highway offence (contravention de grande voirie). These proceedings, brought before the administrative courts, pursue a twofold purpose, the repression of the breach and the restoration of the domain. They are cumulative with the civil action rather than a substitute for it, and they cover both the allision that damages a structure and the vessel or equipment left on a storage area without a title of occupation. For the operator as for the shipowner, the practical consequence is that one and the same event opens two parallel proceedings, before two different courts, each with its own time limits and evidential logic. Neglecting the administrative side on the ground that the civil negotiation is progressing is a frequent and costly mistake.
6. The immobilised ship, the wreck and intervention at the owner’s expense
When a ship becomes a danger or a prolonged obstruction, the authority has a power of action with immediate financial effects. Article L. 5141-2-1 of the Transport Code, in the wording deriving from Law no. 2023-703 of 1 August 2023 applicable since 3 October 2024, allows the requisition of persons and property. Above all, where the owner, the shipowner or the operator, duly served with formal notice to end the danger within the prescribed period, refuses or fails to act, the State’s administrative authority or, within the administrative limits of seaports, the port authority referred to in Article L. 5331-5, may intervene at the expense and risk of the owner, the shipowner or the operator. In an emergency, the intervention measures, including guarding and manoeuvring, may be carried out ex officio and without delay. The formal notice is therefore the decisive document of the file, and the period it prescribes must be treated as an economic forfeiture deadline.
When liability is disputed, the claim is brought before the commercial court of the port or under the arbitration clause of the handling contract. See our page on maritime litigation in France.
These six points almost always combine in a single casualty, and it is their interplay, more than each taken in isolation, that decides the outcome. The firm’s practical guide on port liability details the applicable regimes, the time limits to observe and the reflexes to have in the first hours. Get the port liability guide. For an ongoing matter, the page devoted to maritime law sets out the firm’s working method and the contact form allows you to describe a specific situation.