Opinion ID: 3010868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Negligent Repair

Text: We address, third and finally, Sea-Land's claim for negligent repair of the damaged engine. Following failure of the connecting rod, GE repaired the damaged engine. In November 1994, the engine failed again. The failure was found to be at the location of the 1991 engine block repair. 11 Sea-Land asserts that GE negligently performed the repair and thus breached a duty of care. The damage Sea-Land suffered in 1994 was once again solely economic. Sea-Land attempts to distinguish its negligent repair case from East River, by arguing that GE was not acting as a manufacturer and did not supply a product which injured itself. We are not persuaded. GE repaired the engine free of charge in 1991 because of the defect in the replacement connecting rod. The district court dismissed the negligent repair claim because the sole damages alleged were economic. It held that, pursuant to East River, no products-liability claim lies in admiralty when the only injury claimed is economic loss. April 17, 1997 opinion at 13, citing East River, 106 S.Ct. at 2304. The district court found that plaintiff's remedy lay in contract, not tort. For the reasons we expressed in Sections II and III above, we agree. Despite any negligence or culpability on the part of a manufacturer, where damage is only to the product itself and where the only loss is economic, there is no basis for tort recovery. The parties must seek their remedy under contract and warranty law.