Barber Lines A/S v. M/V Donau Maru case brief summary
764 F.2d 50 (1985)
CASE FACTS
A ship, owned by the Appellees, spilled fuel oil into a harbor. The spill prevented the appellants ship from being able to dock at a nearby berth.
The appellants sued the appellees and her owners in admiralty.
The appellants made the claim of negligence and sought to recover the extra expenses in the form of damages.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The lower court denied recover. The lower court denied on the basis of the pleadings.
The appellants challenged the action.
DISCUSSION
-Appellate court agrees with lower court and affirms its decision.
-Court finds that controlling case law denies that appellants could recover damages for negligently causing financial harm.
-This is even when foreseeable, except in special circumstances.
-In this case, since the appellants had failed to bring themselves within any recognized class or category in which financial damages were appropriate and/or provide convincing reasons for the creation of any new exception that would work to their legal benefit, the court refuses to stray from the already existing precedent.
CONCLUSION
The court affirms the lower court's decision.
Suggested law school study materials







Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
764 F.2d 50 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The appellants in this case challenged a Massachusetts District Court's ruling that found in the favor of the appellees in an action where the appellants sought recovery for financial injury that was caused by the negligence of the appellees.CASE FACTS
A ship, owned by the Appellees, spilled fuel oil into a harbor. The spill prevented the appellants ship from being able to dock at a nearby berth.
The appellants sued the appellees and her owners in admiralty.
The appellants made the claim of negligence and sought to recover the extra expenses in the form of damages.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The lower court denied recover. The lower court denied on the basis of the pleadings.
The appellants challenged the action.
DISCUSSION
-Appellate court agrees with lower court and affirms its decision.
-Court finds that controlling case law denies that appellants could recover damages for negligently causing financial harm.
-This is even when foreseeable, except in special circumstances.
-In this case, since the appellants had failed to bring themselves within any recognized class or category in which financial damages were appropriate and/or provide convincing reasons for the creation of any new exception that would work to their legal benefit, the court refuses to stray from the already existing precedent.
CONCLUSION
The court affirms the lower court's decision.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
No comments:
Post a Comment