Carbone v. Ursich the Del Rio
1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3146, 209 F.2d 178 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Fishermen who work on a lay-share basis may recover for their share of lost prospective earnings from a third party who negligently damages their vessel or its equipment, thereby preventing them from fishing. This represents a special exception to the general tort rule that prohibits recovery for purely economic losses resulting from negligent interference with a contract.
Facts:
- A group of fishermen were employed as crew members on the fishing boat 'Western Pride.'
- Their compensation was a 61% share of the proceeds from the sale of fish caught, and they did not hold any ownership interest in the vessel or its equipment.
- On October 12, 1949, the 'Western Pride' had secured a substantial catch of sardines in its net.
- The fishing boat 'Del Rio' negligently sailed into the 'Western Pride's' net while it was in the water.
- The collision caused the loss of the fish already caught and significantly damaged the net.
- The damage to the net required repairs, which prevented the crew of the 'Western Pride' from fishing for a period of three days.
- As a result, the fishermen lost their share of the proceeds from both the catch that was in the net and the potential catches they were prevented from making during the repair period.
Procedural Posture:
- The fishermen (libelants) filed a lawsuit in admiralty against the owners of the 'Del Rio' in the federal district court to recover for their lost earnings.
- The district court found that the 'Del Rio' was negligent and that the fishermen had suffered damages as a result.
- The court appointed a special master to compute the damages, who then filed a report concluding that no damages were recoverable based on the precedent set by Borcich v. Ancich.
- The district court confirmed the master's report and entered a final decree adjudging that the fishermen recover nothing, awarding costs of the suit to the owners of the 'Del Rio.'
- The fishermen (appellants) appealed the district court's decree to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a third party who negligently damages a fishing vessel and its net become liable to the vessel's crew members for their share of the lost potential catch, when the crew is compensated by a share of the proceeds and has no ownership interest in the vessel?
Opinions:
Majority - Pope, Circuit Judge
Yes. A third party who negligently damages a fishing vessel is liable to the crew for their lost share of the potential catch. The long-recognized special rule protecting fishermen's economic interests, as 'favorites of admiralty,' was not abrogated by the general tort rule articulated in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint. The court in Robins dealt with a charterer's purely contractual interest, whereas fishermen have a more direct and historically protected interest in the success of the voyage. Prior cases consistently held wrongdoers liable for the crew's lost share, whether the suit was brought by the vessel owner on the crew's behalf or, as permitted under liberal admiralty rules, by the crew members themselves. Overruling its own recent precedent in Borcich v. Ancich, the court holds that the fishermen here have a direct cause of action to recover their economic losses.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the economic loss rule articulated in Robins Dry Dock, which generally bars recovery for purely economic losses absent physical injury or property damage. It establishes that for certain classes of plaintiffs, like commercial fishermen, whose livelihood is directly and foreseeably tied to the use of a specific piece of property, a defendant can be liable for purely economic losses caused by negligence. This ruling revitalizes a special admiralty doctrine protecting seamen and signals that general tort principles may not apply uniformly in maritime law, where historical context and the unique nature of the parties' relationships are paramount. It opens the door for other similarly situated plaintiffs to argue for exceptions to the Robins Dry Dock rule.
