Union Oil Company v. James J. Oppen and John J. Masterson
49 Oil & Gas Rep. 129, 4 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20618, 501 F.2d 558 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Commercial fishermen may recover damages for purely economic losses from a defendant whose negligent conduct caused pollution that diminished aquatic life in public waters, creating an exception to the general rule that bars recovery for negligent interference with a prospective economic advantage.
Facts:
- Defendants, including Union Oil Company which managed the enterprise, were engaged in drilling for oil from Platform 'A' in the Santa Barbara Channel.
- On or about January 28, 1969, the defendants' drilling operations resulted in the release of vast quantities of crude oil from the ocean floor.
- The released oil was carried by natural forces across large areas of the coastal waters of Southern California.
- The plaintiffs were commercial fishermen who earned their livelihood by catching and selling fish from these waters.
- The oil spill allegedly caused a significant reduction in the aquatic life available for commercial fishing in the Santa Barbara Channel.
- As a direct result of the diminished aquatic life, the plaintiffs suffered lost profits in their commercial fishing businesses.
Procedural Posture:
- Commercial fishermen sued Union Oil Co. and other defendants in federal district court for damages resulting from the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.
- The parties entered into a court-approved stipulation in which defendants agreed to pay for all 'legally compensable damages arising from a legally cognizable injury' as if they had been negligent.
- Defendants, the appellants here, filed a motion for partial summary judgment before special masters to dismiss claims for lost profits from the alleged reduction in aquatic life.
- The special masters denied the defendants' motion.
- Defendants objected and renewed their motion for partial summary judgment before the U.S. District Court.
- The district court denied the motion, holding that the loss of a prospective economic advantage was a sufficient basis for recovery.
- The district judge certified the order for an interlocutory appeal, and the defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for leave to appeal, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do commercial fishermen have a legally cognizable claim for lost profits against a defendant whose negligent conduct caused an oil spill that damaged aquatic life in public waters, absent any physical injury to the fishermen's persons or property?
Opinions:
Majority - Sneed, J.
Yes. Commercial fishermen have a legally cognizable claim for lost profits because the economic harm they suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendants' negligent conduct. The general rule precluding recovery for purely economic loss in negligence is not absolute and does not bar the claims here. The court found that the defendants owed a duty to the fishermen, treating this situation as an exception to the general rule based on foreseeability and the special nature of the fishermen's commercial enterprise. The court reasoned that it was clearly foreseeable that an oil spill would diminish aquatic life and thus injure the businesses of commercial fishermen who depend directly on that resource. Drawing on California tort law principles, particularly the multi-factor test from Biakanja v. Irving, and supportive maritime law precedents like Carbone v. Ursich, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' injury was a direct result of the defendants' negligence and not a remote or speculative harm shared by the general public. The injury was a pecuniary loss of a particular and special nature, limited to the class of commercial fishermen who lawfully and directly use the sea's resources in their business.
Concurring - Ely, J.
Yes. I concur in the result that the fishermen may proceed with their claim. However, I believe the decision should rest solely on California tort law, as the parties' arguments and stipulation focused on that body of law. The majority's extensive discussion of admiralty law is unnecessary dictum and not required to properly dispose of the appeal.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant exception to the economic loss rule, which traditionally bars recovery for purely economic damages in negligence actions without accompanying physical harm to person or property. By emphasizing the foreseeability of harm and the plaintiffs' special, direct relationship to the damaged resource, the court created a viable path for recovery for specific classes of plaintiffs in environmental tort cases. This precedent moved away from a rigid application of the doctrine, influencing future litigation involving environmental disasters by allowing plaintiffs whose livelihoods are directly dependent on a natural resource to sue polluters for their lost profits.
Unlock the full brief for Union Oil Company v. James J. Oppen and John J. Masterson