Legal Document

517 U.S. 830116 S.Ct. 1813135 L.Ed.2d 113 EXXON CO., U. S. A., et al.v.SOFEC, INC., al.Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit. No. 95-129. Supreme Argued March 19, 1996 Decided June 10, Syllabus Petitioner Exxon's oil tanker, Houston, ran aground and was lost several hours after its "breakout" from a mooring facility owned operated, or manufactured, by various respondents. Exxon filed complaint in admiralty against respondents, alleging, inter alia, negligence breach warranty. In granting respondents' motion bifurcate trial, District limited first phase thereof question whether postbreakout conduct Houston's captain, Captain Coyne, superseding sole proximate cause loss ship, leaving issue causation breakout itself second phase. After bench court found that Coyne's (and imputation, Exxon's) extraordinary indeed grounding, entered final judgment Exxon. The Circuit affirmed. Among other things, it rejected legal argument doctrines are no longer applicable light v. Reliable Transfer, 421 397, which this abandoned "divided damages" rule previously applied adopted comparative fault principle allocating damages among responsible parties; held Court's findings were well supported record not clearly erroneous; ruled lower did err rendering on warranty claims; concluded that, under circumstances, bifurcation trial an abuse discretion. Held: A plaintiff is superseding, thus proximate, own injury cannot recover part tortfeasors contracting partners whose blameworthy actions breaches causes fact plaintiff's injury. Pp. 5-11. (a) rejects primary requirement, related doctrine, should be admiralty. finds unpersuasive assertion courts' refusal allocate any share parties conflicts with Transfer. requirement before case, suggest inapplicable There nothing internally inconsistent system apportions based upon only Nor there repugnancy between one facet method damages. may correct common-law concepts complex sometimes confusing, but those generally thought necessary limitation liability. ruling defendant's act sufficiently resulting harm warrant imposing liability defendant, courts draw guidance from, extensive body state law applying requirements treatises scholarly sources. 5-8. (b) erred claims fares better. errs relying Italia Societa per Azioni di Navigazione Oregon Stevedoring Co., 376 315, does purport deal such relevant here. Where injured party damage complained of, contract mere damage. Although principles receive labels analysis different "proximate causation" label most frequently employed tort analysis, these nevertheless also restrict contract. finding suffices cut off contractual theory as well. 8-9. (c) Also court's error. identifies some tension findings, has made sort "obvious exceptional showing error," Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Linde Air Prods. 336 271, 275, would justify reversal ultimate conclusion. 10-11. (d) error within questions granted certiorari. To extent reprises all must considered together order they compared rejected. argues abused discretion dividing particular way did, declines address argument. P. 11. 54 F. 3d 570, Thomas, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. NOTICE: This subject formal revision publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Reporter Decisions, States, Washington, D.C. 20543, typographical errors, corrections goes press. Justice Thomas 1 Transfer 397 (1975), we property damages, case affirm "proximate" causation, "superseding cause" apply notwithstanding our adoption principle. I. 2 arises stranding broke away Single Point Mooring System (SPM) operated HIRI respondents manufactured respondent Sofec, Inc.1 Houston engaged delivering into HIRI's pipeline through two floating hoses, pursuant PRII, when heavy storm chafe chain linking vessel SPM. As drifted, hoses parting hose at approximately 1728 nautical time designated below "breakout." bolted portion remained attached ship. So long trailing threatened foul ship's propeller, consequently ability maneuver restricted. 3 During 41 minutes following breakout, captain took ship series maneuvers described detail fact. 1803, small assist vessel, Nene, able get control end so threat Houston. See 572 (CA9 1995). Between 1803 1830, Coyne maneuvered out sea shallow water. Court, appeal, panel Circuit, had successfully avoided peril breakout. App. Pet. Cert. 65; 3d, 578-579. "reached safe position," 64, "heading further danger stranding," id., 578. 4 Many 1830 negligent, according below. Most significant his failure have someone plot position 2004, period during crews Nene working disconnect Without knowing position, unable make effective use navigational chart check hazards. fixes grossly extraordinarily negligent. 61; "Captain decisions calmly, deliberately without pressure imminent peril." 60. His "was entirely independent breakout; he voluntarily decided situation where fixes." Id., 64. 5 At 1956, initiated turn toward shore. Because plotted unaware until ordered another crew member fix 2004. Upon seeing chart, apparently realized headed reef. ensuing efforts avoid reef came too late, moments later aground, constructive total loss. decision foreseeable." 65. 6 Sofec for, cargo. contained warranty, strict products liability, negligence. third-party who supplied tanker 7 Before suggested moved trial. Respondents disputed themselves sought lengthy proceedings resolve factual disputes prior determination motion, limiting respect taken 8 Following 3-week admiralty, grounding. 63. appealed. 9 "that ample time, opportunity available manpower, take precautions eliminated risk do amounted negligence, defendants regard provision berth breakout," "well record," erroneous. 579. contention captain's foreseeable reactions rather, noted, himself explained "because felt unnecessary so." 10 Relying precedent, "[A]n intervening force supersedes negligence" breaks required impose original actor, held, "where subsequent actor's `extraordinary' (defined `neither normal nor reasonably foreseeable')." 574. claims. "Where, here, district omissions deemed fact, damage." 576. Finally, circumstances We 516 ___ (1995). II. 11 makes four arguments below: (1) doctrine admiralty; (2) hence liable loss; (3) error; (4) deprived due process bifurcating issues. A. 12 particular, asserts 13 disagree. discarded longstanding cases divided equally injury, "whatever relative degree their been," S., stead.2 us (Nor, matter, consider been proximately caused defendant case.) 14 Professor Schoenbaum said: 15 "The . substantially contributed actually brought about origin foreseeable. It properly cases. [T]he can reconciled Superseding operates admittedly negligent apportionment absence causation." T. Schoenbaum, Admiralty Maritime Law Section(s) 5-3, pp. 165-166 (2d ed. 1994). 16 Indeed, assert 46 system, least 44 continue recognize doctrine. Brief 28, n. 31; (listing decisions). concedes aware holds otherwise. Tr. Oral Arg. 10. 17 event eschew context "confusing maze concepts"; allocated "fairer simpler," says. Reply Petitioners 2. true commentators often lamented disagreement regarding confusion doctrine's application, see, e.g., W. Keeton, Prosser Keeton Torts 263 (5th 1984), 264, 293, 294, 312. proposes either let principles, complexity, creep back factor "comparative fault" itself, see 2, supra, produce extreme results. "In philosophical sense, consequences go forward eternity, dawn human events, beyond." 264. Nevertheless, 18 "the careless actor will [not] always forces risked Somewhere point reached agree link become tenuous--that what claimed consequence fortuity. Thus, if [negligent] destruction Michigan Avenue Bridge delayed arrival doctor, consequent patient's life, few judges liability." Petition Kinsman Transit 338 2d 708, 725 (CA2 1964), quoted 164. 19 sitting 279 ("`The best authorities merely furnish illustrations situations judicious men careful consideration adjudged side line other'") (quoting Street, Foundations Legal Liability 110 (1906)). B. 20 implicitly because breached warranties, "best situated" prevent Houston; invokes passage 315 (1964). Societa, stevedore implied workmanlike service shipowner nonnegligently supplies defective equipment injures employees stevedoring operations. That claim presented 21 exist foreseeability more stringent than East River Corp. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 858, 874-875 (1986); Restatement (Second) Contracts 351 Comment a, 135-136 (1979); Jaeger, Williston 1344, 227-228 (3d 1968); Corbin, Corbin 1008, 75-76 (1964); 1019, 113-116; cf. E. Farnsworth, Farnsworth 12.14, 241-243 (1990) (Hadley Baxendale, Ex. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854), "impose[s] severe recovery substantial test"). C. 22 above, answer not. Apparently anticipating likely resolved favor, devotes large briefs arguing issues involve application left factfinder, review. See, Milwaukee St. Paul R. Kellogg, 94 469, 473-476 (1877); Torts, 320-321; 998, 22-23. "A law, is, rather correction errors finding, undertake review concurrent very obvious error." Products 275 (1949); Goodman Lukens Steel 482 656, 665 (1987); 401, below,3 conclude error" conclusion, record. necessarily ratifying facts decline reconsider D. 23 i. involved here--whether cause--can never bifurcated issues, reject contention. Again, relies asserting compared. wrong: all. 24 25 ordered. petitioner Shipping Company, vessels carried crude refer both companies affiliated corporations: Pacific Resources, Inc.; Hawaiian Independent Refinery, PRI Marine, International, Inc. (PRII). Some distinction basis culpability, culpability foreseeably 474 1984); 5-4, p. 167 1994); Owen Whitman, Fifteen Years Under Transfer: 1975-1990, Developments American Light Rule Comparative Fault, J. Mar. L. Com. 445, 476-483 (1991). term mean thereby systems appropriate one, assuming them. findings--that gained alleged duty part, stranding"--are uncontested hose, suspended crane topple 1944, injuring crewman. note expressly breakout" "he fixes"; relied

Classification Label: 7