Barber Lines AS v MV Donau Maru PRESENTED
Barber Lines AS v. MV Donau Maru PRESENTED BY 方小允&陈帆
CONTENTS 1 PART ONE 2 3 4 PART TWO PART THREE PART FOUR Fact Issue Procedure History 5 PART FIVE 6 PART SIX Conclusion Three related sets of reasons. Q&A
PART 1 Fact • In December 1979 the ship Donau Maru spilled fuel oil into Boston Harbor. • The spill prevented a different ship, the Tamara, from docking at a nearby berth. • The Tamara had to discharge her cargo at another pier. • In doing so, she incurred significant extra labor, fuel, transport and docking costs. • The Tamara, her owners, and her charterers sued the Donau Maru and her owners in admiralty. • Insofar as is here relevant, they claimed negligence and sought recovery of the extra expenses as damages.
PART 1 Fact LITIGANT James B. Conroy, Boston, Mass. , with whom Charles R. Parrott, Robert S. Brintz and Nutter, Mc. Clennen & Fish, Boston, Mass. , were on brief, for plaintiffs, appellants. V. E. Susan Garsh, Boston, Mass. , with whom Thomas H. Walsh, Jr. and Bingham, Dana & Gould, Boston, Mass. , were on brief, for defendants, appellees.
PART 2 Procedure History The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Rya W. Zobel, J. , rendered judgment for the defendants and denied recovery. The plaintiffs have appealed. The Court of Appeals, Breyer, Circuit Judge, no tort action could be maintained to recover damages for negligently caused.
PART 3 Issue Whether purely financial harm can recover damages for negligently caused?
Part 4 Three related sets of reasons. REASAON 1 We assume that the injury was foreseeable. Nonetheless controlling case law denies that a plaintiff can recover damages for negligently caused financial harm, even when foreseeable, except in special circumstances.
Part 4 Three related sets of reasons. REASAON 2 Precedent seems, at least Before affirming the district court on the basis of existing precedent, we have asked ourselves whether that precedent remains good law. After all, courts have sometimes departed from past legal precedent where changing circumstances viewed in light of underlying legal policy deprived that precedent of sound support.
Part 4 Three related sets of reasons. REASAON 3 Several dissenting Fifth Circuit judges in Testbank, supra, have advocated abandonment of traditional tort rules in this area and the adoption of a new rule that might allow recovery in this case. They would adopt a principle used to identify the class of private plaintiffs permitted to sue in “public nuisance” cases; and they would allow that class of persons to sue negligent defendants to recover foreseeable financial harm.
Part 5 Conclusion The Court of Appeals, Breyer, Circuit Judge, held that, adhering to longstanding and reasonably consistent precedent, no tort action could be maintained to recover damages for negligently caused, purely financial harm arising out of fuel oil spill from one ship into harbor which prevented a different ship from docking at nearby berth, requiring it to discharge cargo at another pier at significant cost.
Part 6 Q&A
THANK YOU FOR WATCHING PRESENTED BY 方小允&陈帆
- Slides: 12