Robins Dry Dock Repair Co v. Flint, 102
| Decision Date | 12 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 102,102 |
| Parties | ROBINS DRY DOCK & REPAIR CO. v. FLINT et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. James K. Symmers and John C. Crawley, both of New York City, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 304 intentionally omitted] Mr. Roscoe H. Hupper, of New York City, for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 305-306 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a libel by time charterers of the steamship Bjornefjord against the Dry Dock Company to recover for the loss of use of the steamer between August 1 and August 15, 1917. The libelants recovered in both Courts below. 13 F. (2d) 3. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 273 U. S. 679, 47 S. Ct. 108, 71 L. Ed. 836.
By the terms of the charter party the steamer was to be docked at least once in every six months, and payment of the hire was to be suspended until she was again in proper state for service. In accordance with these terms the vessel was delivered to the petitioner and docked, and while there the propeller was so injured by the petitioner's negligence that a new one had to be put in, thus causing the delay for which this suit is brought. The petitioner seems to have had no notice of the charter party until the delay had begun, but on August 10, 1917, was formally advised by the respondents that they should hold it liable. It settled with the owners on December 7, 1917, and received a release of all their claims.
The present libel 'in a cause of contract and damage' seems to have been brought in reliance upon allegation that the contract for dry docking between the petitioner and the owners 'was made for the benefit of the libelants and was incidental to the aforesaid charter party,' etc. But it is plain, as stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals, that the libelants, respondents here, were not parties to that contract 'or in any respect beneficiaries' and were not entitled to sue for a breach of it 'even under the most liberal rules that permit third parties to sue on a contract made for their benefit.' 13 F. (2d) 4. 'Before a stranger can avail himself of the exceptional privilege of suing for a breach of an agreement, to which he is not a party, he must, at least, show that it was intended for his direct benefit.' German Alliance Insurance Co. v Home Water Supply Co., 226 U. S. 220, 230, 33 S. Ct. 32, 35 (57 L. Ed. 195, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1000). Although the respondents still somewhat faintly argue the contrary this question seems to us to need no more words. But as the case has been discussed here and below without much regard to the pleadings we proceed to consider the other grounds upon which it has been thought that a recovery could be maintained.
The District Court allowed recovery on the ground that the respondents had a 'property right' in the vessel, although it is not argued that there was a demise, and the owners remained in possession. This notion also is repudiated by the Circuit Court of Appeals and rightly. The question is whether the respondents have an interest protected by the law against unintended injuries inflicted upon the vessel by third persons who know nothing of the charter. If they have, it must be worked out through their contract relations with the owners, not on the postulate that they have a right in rem against the ship. Leary v. United States, 14 Wall. 607, 20 L. Ed. 756; New Orleans-Belize Royal Mail & Central American Steamship Co. v. United States, 239 U. S. 202, 36 S. Ct. 76, 60 L. Ed. 227.
Of course the contract of the petitioner with the owners imposed no immediate obligation upon the petitioner to third persons as we already have said, and whether the petitioner performed it promptly or with negligent delay was the business of the owners and of nobody else. But as there was a tortious damage to a chattel it is sought to connect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oak St. Printery, LLC v. Fujifilm N. Am. Corp.
...348 Pa.Super. 17, 501 A.2d 277, 278-79 (1985) (roots of economic loss doctrine first recognized in Robins Dry Dock and Repair Company v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927)). The legislature was presumably aware of the economic loss doctrine when it established the statut......
-
East River Steamship Corp v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc
...might claim their economic losses, and so on. "The law does not spread its protection so far." Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 309, 48 S.Ct. 134, 135, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927). And to the extent that courts try to limit purely economic damages in tort, they do so by relying ......
-
Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Maxwell, 4133.
...Alliance Ins. Co. v. Homewater Co., 226 U.S. 220, 33 S.Ct. 32, 57 L.Ed. 195, 42 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1000; Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290. Speaking of the first two classes, Williston on Contracts, § 357, points out that the pressing necessity of the......
-
State of La. ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank
...tort. 728 F.2d 748 (5th Cir.1984). The panel, as did the district court, pointed to the doctrine of Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927), and its development in this circuit. Judge Wisdom specially concurred, agreeing that the denial of thes......
-
Corporate Protection Pipeline: Court Denies Economic Damages Based on Robins Dry Dock
...interest. Contact Liskow attorneys Elizabeth Strunk, Michael Golemi, and David Reisman for further questions regarding this topic. 1 275 U.S. 303 (1927). 2 In re Falcon Global Offshore II, No. 21-1062, 2023 WL 7128849 (E.D. La. Oct. 30, 2023). Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made availabl......
-
Table of cases
...§21:36 Robert & Co. Assoc. v. Rhodes-Haverty Partnership , 300 S.E.2d 503 (Ga. 1983), §22:16 Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint , 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927), §22:05 Robinson v. GEICO General Insurance Co. , 447 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 2006), §7:11 Robinson Helicopter Co.......
-
Table of cases
...§21:36 Robert & Co. Assoc. v. Rhodes-Haverty Partnership , 300 S.E.2d 503 (Ga. 1983), §22:16 Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint , 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927), §22:05 Robinson v. GEICO General Insurance Co. , 447 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 2006), §7:11 Robinson Helicopter Co.......
-
Table of Cases
...§22:16 Robert & Co. Assoc. v. Rhodes-Haverty Partnership , 300 S.E.2d 503 (Ga. 1983), §22:16 Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint , 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927), §22:05 Robinson v. GEICO General Insurance Co. , 447 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 2006), §7:11 Robinson Helicopter Co.......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...91 U.S. 580 (1875). 98. E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986); Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927). 99 . See Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). 100. See, e.g. , Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (Clean Wa......