Even with the utmost caution, accidents can happen on waterways. A collision between two vessels (a collision), or the need to rescue a vessel in difficulty (assistance), immediately raises complex questions of liability and compensation. Who should pay for the damage? Does the intervention of a rescuer give the right to a reward? French river law lays down specific rules for these events, distinct from maritime law or general law. Understanding these rules is essential for all users of rivers and canals. For safe and compliant navigation, it is essential to be familiar with all the rules and regulations. basic rules for navigation on french waterways.
Collision between river vessels: a specific regime
When a collision occurs between two vessels on a French inland waterway (excluding the Rhine and Moselle, which have their own rules), it is mainly the law of 5 July 1934 relating to collisions on inland waterways that applies.. This law has a fairly broad scope: it covers direct collisions between inland waterway vessels, but also damage caused by one vessel to another without direct physical contact, for example as a result of poor manoeuvring or failure to comply with navigation regulations.. It also covers collisions involving floating equipment such as dredgers, cranes, ferries and pontoons.. It is essential for operators to scrupulously respect the navigation rules established for waterways in order to prevent such incidents. These rules are part of a wider framework concerning the legal status of inland waterway vesselsincluding ownership and securities. Diligent boat handling not only ensures the safety of passengers and crews, but also preserves the integrity of the surrounding infrastructure. Failure to comply with these rules may result in liability, with legal and financial consequences for offenders. It is also important to emphasise that the inland navigation police in France play a crucial role in enforcing these rules. The officers of this force are responsible for ensuring that the rules are complied with. safety standards on waterways and can intervene in the event of breaches. In this way, increased vigilance on the part of mariners, combined with close cooperation with the authorities, contributes to greater safety on our waterways.
The most important distinction to make is with maritime law. If one of the vessels involved in the collision is a seagoing vessel (i.e. a vessel normally used for navigation at sea and exposed to its risks), then it is no longer the law of 1934 that applies, but the law of 7 July 1967 relating to events at sea.. Determining whether a vessel is a "ship" in the legal sense can be subtle: a ferry crossing a river in its non-maritime section is not generally considered to be a ship.. Qualification depends on the employee's usual assignment.
The core of the 1934 Act's regime is the liability based on proven fault. Unlike the common law system, where the custodian of a thing (the boat) could be presumed liable (article 1242 al. 1 of the Civil Code, formerly 1384 al. 1), in the case of a collision on a river, it is up to the victim to prove that the other boat committed a fault that caused the collision.. Without proof of fault - a navigational error, a false manoeuvre, excessive speed, a failure to keep a proper lookout, a breach of the RGP - the claim for compensation will be rejected.. It is not enough to note the contact; you have to identify the precise behaviour at fault.
Sharing responsibility and exonerations
What happens if no fault can be proved, or if the collision is due to an unforeseeable and irresistible event (force majeure)? In this case, the law is clear: the damage is borne by those who suffered it.. If your boat is damaged in a collision, the cause of which remains uncertain, you will not be able to obtain compensation from the other party.. However, case law is fairly strict on the concept of force majeure in navigation: a simple hazard, such as an unidentified floating object blocking a propeller or rudder, is often considered to be a normal navigational risk and not a fortuitous event that can be exonerated.. To be exonerated, the boat whose fault is initially established must prove that the event of force majeure was the determining cause of the accident..
If, on the other hand, the two boats involved committed faults that contributed to the collision, liability is shared.. How? In proportion to the seriousness of the respective faults. If the judge cannot determine this proportion precisely, or if the faults appear to be equally serious, liability is shared equally (50/50).. This division has a major impact on compensation for third parties. For property damage (to vessels, cargo, crew or passenger property), there is no no solidarity between the boats at fault. Each boat will only have to compensate up to the amount of its share of responsibility. For example, if an A boat is responsible for 70% and a B boat for 30%, the innocent cargo damaged on A will only be able to claim 30% of its loss from B, and will have to pay the remaining 70% (or turn against A if possible). On the other hand, for the personal injury (death or injury) caused to third parties (passengers, crew of the other boat), the boats at fault shall be liable for jointly and severally. Victims may claim 100% of their compensation from either of the parties responsible, with the party who has paid more than his or her share then taking recourse against the other party (via a recourse action)..
The system is also adapted to convoys. In a pushed convoy, it is usually the driver of the pusher who is responsible for manoeuvring the convoy, as pushed barges do not have their own driver.. Unless there is a specific fault on the part of a barge (poor stowage, for example), responsibility for the collision will lie with the pusher.. In the event of towing, each boat (towing and towed) is responsible for its own faults..
Finally, it may happen that a collision is the direct consequence of a first incident, or that it is caused by the fault of an external third party (for example, a badly signposted structure, an obstacle left by a resident...). In such cases, liability may be transferred in whole or in part to the person initially responsible or the third party at fault..
Procedure and financial consequences
In the event of a shipping accident likely to give rise to litigation, a specific procedure is provided for in the former article 168 of the Code du domaine public fluvial (the principles of which remain relevant): the drivers involved must go to the clerk's office of the nearest tribunal d'instance (now the tribunal judiciaire or tribunal de proximité) to make a statement on the circumstances of the accident.. The judge may then order an expert appraisal or a visit to the premises to establish the facts and the extent of the damage.. This is often a useful step in preserving evidence.
In financial terms, actions for compensation for damage caused by a collision on a river are time-barred by two years from the event. You must therefore act quickly. For recourse actions between co-responsible parties (those who have paid more than their share), the deadline is shorter: one year from the day of payment.
Important information for creditors: compensation due for damage caused by a collision (to other boats, to people, to port structures, etc.) benefits from a privilege on the responsible boat. It's a strong guarantee that even takes precedence over certain mortgages..
Assistance in river law: coming to the rescue
Imagine a boat with an engine failure drifting towards a bridge, or a barge taking on water following damage. The natural and often necessary reaction is to go to the rescue. Is there a legal obligation to do so, and can the helper be paid for his or her work?
The General Police Regulations (RGP) impose a legal duty of care. Any boatmaster in the vicinity of another vessel in danger (endangering persons or threatening to obstruct the channel) must render immediate assistance, but only insofar as this is compatible with the safety of his own vessel.. Failure to do so could constitute an offence.
On the other hand, unlike maritime law, which has international conventions (Brussels 1910, London 1989) and a national law (1967) organising the remuneration of salvors ("no one works for nothing at sea"), general French river law is silent on the question of salvors' remuneration.. There is no specific text (except for the Rhine and Moselle via a former local law). ). The 1989 London Convention on salvage, although potentially applicable by virtue of its broad definition of "ship", is the subject of a reservation by France, which intends not to apply it to purely river operations between inland waterway vessels.. However, the exact scope of this reservation remains debated.. In addition, the legal framework concerning remuneration for assistance services on freshwater is more fragmented, which complicates the situation for professionals. The lack of clear texts and the absence of a specific law on remuneration make it difficult to determine the rights and obligations of players in the sector, particularly for those with a river navigation licence in France. The uncertainty surrounding this issue can lead to disputes and differing interpretations between stakeholders.
In the absence of a text, the courts have had to decide on a case-by-case basis. In order for an operation to qualify as assistance potentially giving rise to a right to remuneration, the case law first requires that the rescued boat has actually been at riskeven if the danger was not imminent. A simple comfort aid between two boats does not constitute assistance..
Secondly, with regard to the legal nature of the operation, judges have often rejected the qualification of "business management" (where the manager is only entitled to the reimbursement of his useful expenses). ) in favour of a tacit assistance contract. The idea is that the call for help from the boat in distress (even if implicit) constitutes an offer of remuneration, and that the assistant's intervention constitutes acceptance.. This contractual qualification then allows the judge, on the basis of equity and custom (article 1194 of the Civil Code, formerly 1135), to award the assistant a remuneration that takes into account not only his expenses and his loss of earnings, but also the risks incurred, the efforts made and the value of the property saved.. It's a fairer solution for those who take risks to save others.
A collision or salvage operation raises complex issues of liability and compensation. Contact our firm for an assessment of your situation and to defend your interests, benefiting from our expertise in commercial law and river transport.
Sources
- Law of 5 July 1934 on collision in inland navigation
- Law no. 67-545 of 7 July 1967 on occurrences at sea (applicable if a seagoing vessel is involved)
- Decree no. 73-912 of 21 September 1973 on the General Police Regulations for Inland Navigation (RGP) (for the duty to assist)
- Civil Code (for general principles of liability and quasi-contracts/contracts)
- Transport Code (for the privilege relating to collision compensation)
- London Convention of 28 April 1989 on assistance (limited relevance in pure French river law)
EN 
FR