Burgess v. M/V Tamano
370 F. Supp. 247 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private party may recover for purely economic losses resulting from a public nuisance if they can demonstrate they have suffered a 'particular' injury, which is an injury different in kind, not merely degree, from that suffered by the general public. An injury is considered different in kind when the defendant's actions interfere with the plaintiff's direct exercise of a public right for commercial purposes upon which their livelihood depends.
Facts:
- On July 22, 1972, the tanker M/V TAMAÑO was traveling through Hussey Sound en route to Portland, Maine.
- While in the sound, the tanker struck an outcropping known as 'Soldier Ledge.'
- As a result of the collision, the tanker discharged approximately 100,000 gallons of Bunker C oil into the waters of Casco Bay.
- A group of commercial fishermen and clam diggers depended on fishing and harvesting clams in the now-polluted waters of Casco Bay for their livelihood.
- A separate group of business owners in the town of Old Orchard Beach, including motels, restaurants, and grocery stores, relied on tourist trade for their income, which was affected by the polluted bay and beaches.
Procedural Posture:
- Various classes of plaintiffs, including commercial fishermen, clam diggers, and Old Orchard Beach business owners, filed class action lawsuits in the United States District Court.
- Plaintiffs sought to recover damages from defendants associated with the tanker M/V TAMAÑO for an oil spill in Casco Bay.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss the claims of the commercial fishermen, commercial clam diggers, and the Old Orchard Beach business owners, arguing their asserted economic losses were not legally cognizable.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under maritime tort law, may private parties recover for purely economic losses caused by a public nuisance, such as an oil spill in public waters, if they lack a direct property interest in the affected resource?
Opinions:
Majority - Gignoux, District Judge
Yes, but only if they suffer a 'particular' injury different in kind from the public. The court holds that private parties may recover for purely economic losses from a public nuisance if they can demonstrate a special injury. The court reasons that those who depend on the direct exercise of a public right for their commercial livelihood—such as commercial fishermen and clam diggers—suffer a unique and particular injury when that right is interfered with. Their pecuniary loss from a destroyed business is distinct from the general public's harm. Conversely, businesses like motels and restaurants that suffer an indirect loss of customers due to the pollution experience an injury that is common to the whole community, which is different only in degree, not in kind, and is therefore not legally cognizable.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial distinction for recovering purely economic losses from a public nuisance under maritime law, particularly in environmental torts. It carves out an exception to the traditional rule against recovery for such losses for commercial actors whose businesses are directly linked to the affected public resource. The decision solidifies the 'particular damage' rule by clarifying that direct interference with a commercial livelihood constitutes harm different in 'kind,' whereas indirect, derivative economic harm (like lost tourism) is only different in 'degree' and is not recoverable. This precedent creates a clear, though sometimes difficult, line between plaintiffs who can and cannot sue for economic damages resulting from widespread environmental harm.
Unlock the full brief for Burgess v. M/V Tamano