PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging
Decision Date | 27 February 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 82-C-2201,82-C-2201 |
Citation | 447 So.2d 1058 |
Parties | PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BEAN DREDGING, et al. |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Fred H. Sievert, Jr., Robert S. Dampf, Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, Lake Charles, for applicant.
Cornelius G. VanDalen, Allen F. Campbell, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, for respondent.
The issue in this case is whether a dredging contractor who negligently damaged a natural gas pipeline may be held liable for the economic losses incurred by the pipeline owner's contract customer who was required to seek and obtain gas from another source during the period of repair. Thus, this case brings into focus the broad question of recovery of an indirect economic loss incurred by a party who had a contractual relationship with the owner of property negligently damaged by a tortfeasor. 1 We conclude that while the situation giving rise to the question in this case falls literally within the expansive terms of La.C.C.Art. 2315, in that the dredging contractor's "act ... cause[d] damage to another", the customer cannot recover his indirect economic loss. 2 For the policy reasons hereinafter stated in a duty-risk analysis, we hold that the damages to the economic interest of the contract purchaser of natural gas, caused by a dredging contractor's negligent injury to property which prevents the pipeline owner's performance of the contract to supply natural gas to the purchaser, do not fall within the scope of the protection intended by the law's imposition of a duty on dredging contractors not to damage pipelines negligently.
Bean Dredging Company's dredging operations in the Calcasieu River caused damage to Texaco's natural gas pipeline. As a result, Texaco was unable to fulfill its contract to supply natural gas to PPG Industries for operation of its manufacturing plant, and PPG had to obtain fuel from another source at an increased cost. PPG filed this suit against Bean, seeking to recover the increased cost of obtaining natural gas. Bean filed an exception of no cause of action, contending that Louisiana has never recognized the right of recovery for negligent interference with contractual relations.
The trial court sustained Bean's exception of no cause of action. The court of appeal affirmed, relying on Forcum-James Co. v. Duke Transportation Co., 231 La. 953, 93 So.2d 228 (1957). 419 So.2d 23. We granted certiorari. 422 So.2d 151.
When the question of recovery of indirect economic losses caused by a negligent injury to property that interferes with contractual relations has been presented in previous cases, the courts of this state have generally denied recovery without analyzing the problem, taking a mechanical approach to the unreasoned conclusion that the petition fails to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. Most cases have cited Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927), and Forcum-James Co. v. Duke Transportation Co., above, which were relied on by the court of appeal in the present case. See, for example, Desormeaux v. Central Industries, Inc., 333 So.2d 431 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1976), cert. denied 337 So.2d 225 (La.1976); Messina v. Sheraton Corporation of America, 291 So.2d 829 (La.App. 4th Cir.1974).
In Robins, an admiralty case, the charterer of a vessel sought recovery of damages for its loss of use while the vessel was out of service after the dry dock operator negligently damaged its propeller. The Supreme Court denied recovery on the basis that the negligent repairer, who acted unintentionally while unaware of the contract of charter, cannot be held liable unless the party seeking damages had a proprietary interest in the damaged property.
Although knowledge does not seem to be a relevant factor to the determination of the defendant's liability to the charterer, the case has been cited countless times for the proposition that recovery is generally denied for negligent interference with contractual relations. 3 A better reasoned explanation for the Robins decision was suggested in F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts § 6.10 (1956), as follows (Emphasis supplied.)
Similar policy considerations lead to our decision in the present case. Under the alleged facts, there appears to be no question that Bean is liable to Texaco for the costs of repairing the pipeline and for the direct economic losses sustained by Texaco during the period of repair. 4 However, the rule of law which prohibits negligent damage to property does not necessarily require that a party who negligently causes injury to property must be held legally responsible to all persons for all damages flowing in a "but for" sequence from the negligent conduct.
Rules of conduct are designed to protect some persons under some circumstances against some risks. Malone, Ruminations on Cause-in-Fact, 9 Stan.L.Rev. 60 (1956). Policy considerations determine the reach of the rule, and there must be an ease of association between the rule of conduct, the risk of injury, and the loss sought to be recovered. Hill v. Lundin & Assoc., Inc., 260 La. 542, 256 So.2d 620 (1972). A judge, when determining whether the interest of the party seeking recovery of damages is one that falls within the intended protection of the rule of law whose violation gave rise to the damages, should consider the particular case in the terms of the moral, social and economic values involved, as well as with a view toward the ideal of justice. See Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So.2d 1146 (La.1983).
There is clearly an ease of association in the present case between the rule of law which imposes a duty not to negligently damage property belonging to another and the risk of injury sustained by Texaco because of the damage to its property. As noted, however, a rule of law is seldom intended to protect every person against every risk. It is much more difficult to associate the same rule of law, in terms of the moral, social and economic values involved, with the risk of injury and the economic loss sustained by the person whose only interest in the pipeline damaged by the tortfeasor's negligence arose from a contract to purchase gas from the pipeline owner. It is highly unlikely that the moral, social and economic considerations underlying the imposition of a duty not to negligently injure property encompass the risk that a third party who has contracted with the owner of the injured property will thereby suffer an economic loss.
Moreover, imposition of responsibility on the tortfeasor for such damages could create liability "in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State of La. ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank
...So.2d 652, 655 (Miss.1980). The Supreme Court of Louisiana recently considered abandoning the Robins rule in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging, Inc., 447 So.2d 1058 (La.1984), where a customer of a pipeline owner sued a dredging contractor who negligently damaged the pipeline. The custo......
-
In re Syngenta AG Mir 162 Corn Litig.
...analysis on a case-by-case basis. See 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney, 538 So.2d 228, 234 (La.1989) (citing PPG Indus., Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So.2d 1058 (La.1984), as having "abrogat[ed] the rule that flatly prohibited recovery for intangible economic loss produced by negligent conduc......
-
Ts & C Investments, L.L.C. v. Beusa Energy, Inc.
...Fifth Circuit have adopted the Robins Dry Dock rule in the context of an unintentional maritime tort. See PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So.2d 1058, 1059 (La.1984) (in suit brought and decided under maritime law, court held dredging contractor who negligently damaged a natural g......
-
Bd. of Comm'rs of the Se. La. Flood Prot. Auth.—E. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., Civil Action No. 13–5410.
...30–800, 717 So.2d 1263 (La.App. 2 Cir.1998) ).77 Id. at p. 18.78 Id. at p. 17.79 Id. at pp. 18–19 (citing PPG Indus., Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So.2d 1058, 1062 (La.1984) ; Gulf Explorer Co. v. Hoover Oilfield Supply, Inc., No. 08–5016, 2011 WL 4572688, *4–5 (E.D.La.9/30/11) (Lemelle, J.);......
-
Evaluating the Relationship Between Independent Insurance Adjusters and Insureds: the Case Against Imposing an Independent Duty of Care
...(Giddings and Lewis, Inc., v. Indus. Risk Insurers, 348 S.W.3d 729, 738-39 (Ky. 2011)); Louisiana (PPG Indus., Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (La. 1984)); Maine (Oceanside at Pine Point Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Peachtree Doors, Inc., 659 A.2d 267, 269-71 (Me. 1995)); Maryland (L......
-
The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and the Limits of Civil Liability
...1992). 57. See, e.g., Steele v. J and S Metals, Inc., 335 A.2d 629, 630 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1974); PPG Indus., Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So. 2d 1058, 1060-61 (La. 1984); Ferguson v. Green Island Contracting Corp., 355 N.Y.S.2d 196, 197-99 (N.Y. App. Div. 58. See, e.g., Barber Lines, 764 F.2d......