When a ship damages a quay, a fender, a loading arm or a terminal crane while berthing or unberthing, the liability of more than one party comes into question. The duties of the shipowner, the master, the pilot, the tug operator and the terminal are not the same. Compensation and insurance outcomes cannot be worked out until it is established which movement caused the damage, what obligations each party had undertaken and what condition the facility was in before the incident.
For foreign shipowners and insurers in port casualties in Türkiye, the problem is not limited to the repair invoice. Interruption of operations, waiting vessels, temporary safety measures, security demands and the choice of law in the various contracts also affect the file. This article examines damage to the port's and terminal's own facilities, equipment and operations, as distinct from damage to the cargo being carried.
How is contact with a fixed port facility distinguished from a collision between ships?
The provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code on collision (çatma) govern incidents between ships within the conditions of their application. Damage to a fixed quay, a pier pile or a terminal crane is not in every case a collision between two ships. The expression “allision”, used in English-language files, does not replace the legal characterization under Turkish law. [1]
Where a floating pier, a barge or a private structure is damaged, the nature of the structure is examined separately. The fact that an object is on the water is not by itself enough for it to be considered a ship under the Turkish Commercial Code. The legal characterization may affect the applicable liability regime, the limitation period, the preservation of evidence and the insurance assessment.
Damage does not necessarily arise from direct contact. The current created by a ship’s propeller, wave action, a parted line or equipment used during loading may also damage a shore facility. The physical mechanism of the incident must be described correctly from the outset. A general statement such as “the ship was in port” does not explain which movement is linked to which damage.
Liability of the shipowner, the master and the operator
TTK Article 1062 is one of the basic provisions on the liability of the shipowner for damage caused to third parties through the fault of the crew and of the compulsory advisory pilot in the performance of their duties. Which person holds the status of shipowner is determined through the relationship of use and operation of the ship. The registered owner and the person who operates the ship in his or her own name and for his or her own account may be different persons. [1]
The master’s maneuvering plan, choice of safe speed, decisions on the use of engine and rudder, instructions and reaction to an abnormal situation are examined. Even where a technical failure or a sudden environmental event is alleged, however, the cause of the failure, the maintenance history and the precautions that could have been taken in advance are investigated. The statement “there was an engine failure” does not by itself remove legal liability.
The contract between a time or voyage charterer and the shipowner does not automatically redefine the directly injured terminal’s rights. The parties’ recourse relationship among themselves is separate from liability in the external relationship. In relationships approaching a transfer of operation, such as a bareboat charter, the capacities of the parties must be determined with particular care.
How does taking a pilot on board affect liability?
The presence of a pilot on board does not show that all liability of the master and the shipowner has ended. Under Turkish law, the distinction between a compulsory advisory pilot and a compulsory pilot who directs the ship is important. In the collision context, TTK Article 1291 provides different consequences for these two situations; TTK Article 1062 also deals separately with the compulsory advisory pilot. [1]
In carrying this distinction over to a file concerning damage to a port facility, it must be checked whether the incident falls within the scope of the collision provisions and what the pilot’s actual legal status was. A decision concerning the different pilotage system of a foreign port cannot be applied unchanged to every maneuver in Türkiye. The fact that pilotage is compulsory should not be treated as the same thing as the ship being legally directed by a compulsory pilot.
The master–pilot exchange of information, the ship’s maneuvering characteristics, draft, engine or rudder limitations and the tug plan should have been recorded. Who supplied the information, what instruction was given and how it was responded to are compared against the voice and navigation records. A statement later made by a single person does not replace all the technical records available.
How is the liability of the tug operator determined?
The tug’s task may be berthing assistance, pushing or pulling with a specified force, emergency intervention or another service. The instruction given, the tug’s position, the method of making fast, the condition of the line, the towing capacity and the response time matter in clarifying the incident. The service contract showing the allocation of tasks and the port conditions must be examined.
Where the tug operator is alleged to be at fault, the effect of that fault on the damage must be shown technically. By contrast, the mere presence of a tug is not enough to transfer responsibility for every movement of the ship to the tug. An erroneous instruction from the ship, a delayed maneuver, inadequate tug planning or defective performance of the service are separate heads of inquiry.
Standard contracts may contain exclusion of liability, indemnity, third-party damage, choice of law and arbitration clauses. Whether these terms were validly incorporated into the contract, how they relate to mandatory rules and their effect on third parties are assessed separately. All the provisions of an offshore towage form that is not used for harbor towage should not be taken as the basis as though they applied automatically.
Why do the terminal’s maintenance and operating conditions matter?
The age and capacity of the fender system, the condition of the mooring bollards, the load limits of the quay, the approach area, depth information and maintenance records may affect the assessment of fault. Any incorrect or incomplete information given by the terminal, failure to report a previously known defect or exceeding of safe operating limits must also be investigated.
Whether the damage is new or old is one of the basic questions of the first survey. Photographs taken before the incident, periodic inspections and earlier repair files may explain the date of cracks or deformation. The absence of these records makes it harder to determine the extent of the new damage. Old corrosion and new impact effect on the same structure must be separated technically.
The defenses the ship side may raise against the terminal are not considered independently of the incident as a whole. If inadequacy of the fender is alleged, the ship’s contact speed and angle are also evaluated. Where several factors are present, how liability and the recourse relationship among the parties are to be established is determined within the framework of the applicable law.
How are repair costs and interruption of operations calculated?
The calculation of physical damage should start from reasonable repair methods. Emergency safety measures, temporary repairs and permanent repairs are shown as separate items. The materials used, engineering services, underwater inspection, labor, equipment and commissioning costs are documented. The same expense should not be entered again under both emergency response and permanent repair.
That new equipment provides higher capacity than the old or extends its service life may affect the calculation. Even so, an automatic depreciation deduction at the same rate cannot be applied to every renewal. The unavailability of the old part on the market, the safety standard, the mandatory technical solution and the facility’s function before the incident are examined together. The aim is to establish the actual loss connected with the casualty.
In an interruption of operations, it must be determined whether the whole terminal or only one berth was closed. The possibility of transferring work to another berth, changing shifts or working with temporary equipment may affect the loss period. Capacity that could not be used and business actually lost are not the same thing. Reservations, vessel call schedules, cancellations, customer contracts and actual revenue records are compared.
| Loss item | Basis of calculation | Point to check |
|---|---|---|
| Physical repair | Survey, project, quotation, invoice | Separating old damage from new damage |
| Temporary safety measure | Work order, equipment and duration record | Urgency and proportionate cost |
| Interruption of operations | Capacity, work plan, revenue and expense records | Gross turnover not being counted as direct loss |
| Alternative service cost | Cost of another berth or equipment | Purpose of mitigating loss, and duplication |
| Third-party claims | Contract, legal liability, payment document | Basis for passing the claim on to the terminal |
The delay invoices of waiting ships cannot each be charged automatically to the ship involved in the casualty. Whose claim it is, its legal basis, its sufficient connection with the damage and the applicable law are examined. There may be a difference between a payment the terminal makes voluntarily to its customer and a payment it is legally bound to make.
How are H&M, P&I and terminal insurances related?
Hull and machinery insurance, P&I and the terminal’s property or business interruption insurance may protect different interests. The provisions on collision or on fixed and floating object liability in an H&M policy vary according to the terms used. The presence of the abbreviation “FFO” does not by itself mean that every shore damage will be covered in the same way.
Gard Rule 37 is a club rule showing how liability for damage to fixed or floating objects caused by a ship’s physical contact is treated within certain hull insurance relationships. For contactless wave or propeller-wash damage, the same provision may not be directly sufficient; other relevant rules are checked. It should also not be assumed that the deductible under the hull policy will automatically be paid by the P&I club. [2]
Terminal terms of use may contain indemnity undertakings that go beyond statutory liability. It matters whether such undertakings were accepted by the club in advance. A settlement or a broad admission of liability made by the insured should be compared with the consent provisions in the policy. An insurer’s sending of a surveyor does not mean that it accepts all claims.
If the terminal’s own insurer makes a payment, subrogation and recourse may come into play. Which items were paid, who bears the deductible and whether the injured party has any other right of claim must be shown clearly. Double recovery for the same loss must not be created; the items paid by the liable party should be matched with the insurance payments.
How is the initial technical evidence preserved?
The timeline of the maneuver should be compared across the records of the ship, the tug, the terminal and the traffic services. VDR records, AIS, engine and rudder movements, camera footage, communications and weather data may each provide different details. An AIS record alone may not explain the relationship between speed, command and cause across the whole maneuver.
It is important to copy the original records, to establish from whom they were obtained, to explain time differences and to store them without alteration. The whole of the relevant time interval should be preserved rather than only a short, selected part of the video or audio. Where there is a risk of data loss, the taking of evidence by the court (delil tespiti) and a notice to the relevant parties to preserve records should be considered without delay.
The examination of fault and the determination of the amount of damage may require different expertise. A maneuvering expert may not, alone, verify all the costs of an engineering repair. The need for construction, mechanical, maritime and financial examination should be determined according to the nature of the file. A joint survey may be useful, but it does not mean that the parties accept every comment in the report.
Plan of action for a foreign shipowner and insurer
In the first legal review, the incident’s connection with Türkiye, the capacities of the defendants, the terminal and towage contracts, the choice of law and the jurisdiction or arbitration clauses are determined. The incident’s having occurred in Türkiye and every contract’s being subject to Turkish law are not the same result. Tort, contract and insurance claims may call for separate connecting rules.
That a claim for damage to a port facility is treated as a maritime claim does not mean that a precautionary attachment will in every case be applied to the ship. The type of claim, the liable person, the ship that may be attached and the procedural conditions under TTK Article 1352 and the following articles are examined together. The ship’s departure schedule or a discussion of security does not replace these legal conditions. [1]
As regards limitation of liability, TTK Article 1328 and the following articles and the applicable LLMC regime are assessed. For certain claims relating to harbor works and aids to navigation, the priority provision in TTK Article 1334 may also matter. However, the existence of a limit does not mean that liability or the amount of the loss has been admitted. Different limitation rules may apply to wreck removal costs arising from the same casualty. [1]
In calculating time limits too, the legal nature of the claim must be the basis. The two-year period provided for collision in TTK Article 1297 should not be applied, without thought, to every kind of damage to a fixed facility. The time limits for tort, contract, insurance and recourse claims are checked separately. When a letter of undertaking is obtained, the period, the claim covered, jurisdiction, interest and costs must be clearly written.
For a claim subject to the general tort provisions of Turkish law, TBK Article 72 provides two years from learning of the damage and the liable person and ten years from the act in any event; a special rule applies to acts requiring a longer criminal limitation period. For a contractual claim, where there is no special period, the general ten-year period in TBK Article 146 may come into play. The limitation schedule should therefore show together the claimant, the respondent, the legal ground, the starting event and the step that preserves the period. [4]
Case review: pilot’s instruction and liability for the maneuver
In its decision of 20 November 2012, E. 2010/13174, K. 2012/18684, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi) considered damage caused by a ship maneuvering in a foreign port to another ship that was at anchor. In the decision, the objections to the assessment that, on the facts of the case, the pilot’s instruction did not release the shipowner from liability were rejected. The judgment was quashed because no decision had been made on the maritime lien and pledge claims that were also raised. [3]
This decision was not given on damage to a fixed terminal and applies the provisions of the former Law No. 6762. Its use here is to show, with a concrete example, that the presence of a pilot cannot be treated as an automatic ground for non-liability. In a current file, Law No. 6102, the pilot’s status and the legal characterization of the incident must be re-examined. It would not be appropriate to take only the result “the shipowner is liable” from the decision and generalize it to all port casualties.
Example file: damage to a fender and a loading arm
Let us hypothetically assume that, in a tug-assisted berthing, the ship damages a fender and a loading arm. The ship’s speed and angle, the command received by the tug, the maintenance condition of the fender and the safety position of the loading arm are compared. Work the terminal continued at another berth during the repair is separated out of the calculation of the loss of operations. The same timeline is used for the physical damage and the loss of income; each insurer is given only the coverage and documents relating to its own policy.
Conclusion
To reach the right result in losses involving ports, piers and terminals, the examination of the maneuver, facility safety, contracts and insurance must be carried out together. When the roles of the master, the pilot, the tug and the operator are separated on the basis of concrete evidence, both the assessment of fault and the calculation of the loss are put on a sounder footing. Preserving the first records and documenting the actual economic effect of the loss of operations are decisive in disputes with foreign parties as well.
Related articles: Marine pollution and compensation; Removal of ship wrecks; Injury and death of crew members; Fault and compensation in ship collisions; Maritime casualty claims under P&I insurance.
Frequently Asked Questions
If a ship strikes a quay, is the shipowner liable in every case?
Liability is determined by the applicable law, fault, the causal link and any contractual obligations. No firm conclusion can be given without examining a technical failure, the condition of the facility and the conduct of other parties.
Does taking a pilot on board release the shipowner from liability?
It does not do so automatically. The pilot’s legal status and duty matter. The distinction between a compulsory advisory pilot and a compulsory pilot who directs the ship is assessed within the scope of application of the relevant provisions.
If the tug is at fault, against whom is the claim directed?
The tug’s fault, the ship’s instructions and the contract terms are examined together. There may be more than one liable party and a recourse relationship among the parties.
Is all the turnover lost by the terminal compensated?
Gross turnover is not treated as direct compensation. The actual loss of operations, expenses saved, the possibility of alternative working and the connection with the casualty are assessed.
Does P&I cover all damage to port facilities?
Cover depends on the policy and the club terms. Physical contact, contactless damage, the scope of H&M, the deductible and additional liabilities assumed by contract are checked separately.
Is there always a two-year limitation period for port damage?
No. The legal nature and time limits of collision, fixed-facility damage, contract, insurance and recourse claims are determined separately. A single period cannot be applied to all claims.
Sources
1 — Law No. 6102 on Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), in particular Articles 1061–1062, 1286–1297, 1328–1334 and 1352 et seq.
2 — Gard, Rule 37: Damage to fixed or floating objects. An example of certain club terms; for contactless damage, other relevant club rules must be examined separately.
3 — Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 11. HD), 20.11.2012, E. 2010/13174, K. 2012/18684; case record. Full text reviewed; it concerns two ship collisions in the period of the former law.
4 — Law No. 6098 on the Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), text adopted by the Grand National Assembly, provisions on damage, tort and breach of contract.
5 — IMO, Status of IMO Treaties 2026, Vol. II, records of parties and reservations for LLMC 1976 and the 1996 Protocol.
Date of source access and legislative review: 14 October 2026. Before publication, changes and applicability to the specific case must be checked.