Dick Meyers Towing Serv., Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Dick Meyers Towing Serv., Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
99 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 31 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Veracruz v. BP, P.L.C. (ca5, 2015-05-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Veracruz v. BP, P.L.C. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
At least one circuit has recognized a Robins Dry Dock exception for "economic losses that are intentionally caused.” See Ballard Shipping Co. v. Beach Shellfish, 32 F.3d 623 , 625 n. 1 (1st Cir.1994) (citing Dick Meyers, 577 F.2d at 1025).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re: Deepwater Horizon (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
The captain and the 6 At least one circuit has recognized a Robins Dry Dock exception for “economic losses that are intentionally caused.” See Ballard Shipping Co. v. Beach Shellfish, 32 F.3d 623 , 625 n.1 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing Dick Myers, 577 F.2d at 1025).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Plains Pipeline, L.P. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (2×)
E.D. La. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co. v. M/V Bayou Lacombe, 597 F.2d 469, 472-73 (5th Cir.1979) (citing Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir.1978)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kirby's Spectrum Collision, Inc. v. Government Employees Insurance
S.D. Ala. · 2010 · confidence medium
Co., 875 So.2d 1143, 1153 (Ala.2003) (“to establish tortious interference with contractual or business relations a plaintiff must prove ... the *1232 defendant’s knowledge of the contract or business relation”); Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir.1978) (“a plaintiff may not recover for interference with his contractual relations unless he shows that the interference was intentional or knowing”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maersk Line Ltd. v. Care
E.D. Va. · 2003 · confidence medium
These include exceptions for claims brought by fishermen, the "favorites of admiralty," see Union Oil Co. v. Oppen, 501 F.2d 558, 567 (9th Cir.1974), and claims for economic losses that are intentionally caused, see Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re: v. Beach Shellfish
1st Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Although the Judiciary Act of 1789 vested "exclusive ____________________ 1The classic exceptions include claims brought by fishermen as "favorites of admiralty," see Union Oil Co. v. ___ ______________ Oppen, 501 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1974), and claims for economic _____ losses that are intentionally caused, see Dick Meyers Towing ___ __________________ Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir. _____________ _____________ 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908 (1979). ____________ -6- -6- original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" in the federa…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re: v. Beach Shellfish
1st Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Although the Judiciary Act of 1789 vested "exclusive 1The classic exceptions include claims brought by fishermen as "favorites of admiralty," see Union Oil Co. v. Oppen, 501 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1974), and claims for economic losses that are intentionally caused, see Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908 (1979). -6- original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" in the federal courts, the act added a provision "saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Ballard Shipping Company, Etc. v. Beach Shellfish
1st Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
The classic exceptions include claims brought by fishermen as “favorites of admiralty,” see Union Oil Co. v. Oppen, 501 F.2d 558 (9th Cir.1974), and claims for economic losses that are intentionally caused, see Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908 , 99 S.Ct. 1215 , 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979). 2 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sekco Energy, Inc. v. M/V MARGARET CHOUEST
E.D. La. · 1993 · confidence medium
Defendants have attempted to bind this Court in a semantic straitjacket by asking it to blindly apply a rule of law without any regard for its historical purpose. *1012 Rather than following this course, the Court notes that the “critical factor in the application of the Robins holding ... [is] ‘the character of the interest harmed’.” Vicksburg Towing v. Mississippi Marine Transport, 609 F.2d 176 , 177 (5th Cir.1980) (quoting Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir. 1978) (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Consolidated Aluminum Corporation v. C.F. Bean Corporation (2×)
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
TESTBANK, 752 F.2d at 1022 -24 (quoting Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908 , 99 S.Ct. 1215 , 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stephenson v. Esquivel
D.N.M. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Stewart v. United States, 716 F.2d 755, 757-59 (10th Cir.1982); Transok Pipeline Co. v. Darks, 565 F.2d at 1154 ; North Dakota v. Merchants Nat’l Bank and Trust Co., 634 F.2d 368, 374 (8th Cir.1980); Ortiz v. United States, 595 F.2d 65, 72 (1st Cir.1979); Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1024 (5th Cir.1978) ; Pearce v. United States, 450 F.Supp. 613, 618 (D.Kan.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellard Contracting Co. v. United States
N.D. Ala. · 1982 · confidence medium
In Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1024 (5th Cir.1978), ce rt. denied, 440 U.S. 908 , 99 S.Ct. 1215 , 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979), the Fifth Circuit held that “merely negligent interference with contract rights is not actionable.” Additionally, the claims based on interference with contract rights, whether intentional or merely negligent, are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wadsworth v. Nalco Chemical Co.
N.D. Ala. · 1981 · confidence medium
A merely negligent interference does not give rise to a cause of action and no recovery may thus be had unless the plaintiff shows that the interference was intentional or knowing. 1 Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1024-25 (5th Cir. 1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cargill, Incorporated v. Offshore Logistics, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
These are the same facts before us.- Our decision in Kaiser Aluminum, supra, was recently affirmed again by this court in Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908 , 99 S.Ct. 1215 , 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979), where we stated that “the law has traditionally been reluctant to recognize claims based solely on harm to the interest in contractual relations or business expectancy.” Louisiana courts have also consistently held that there can be no recovery when presented with facts similar to those now before the court.
cited Cited "see" Barbar Lines A/S v. M/V Donau Maru
D. Mass. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023 , 1025 n. 4 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908 , 99 S.Ct. 1215 , 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979).
discussed Cited "see" Venore Transportation Company v. M/V Struma
4th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1978); Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation v. Marshland Dreding Co., 455 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1972); Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. v. M/V Marathonian, 392 F.Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y.), Aff'd 528 F.2d 907 (2d Cir. 1975). 12 In Chargeurs Reunis Compagnie Francaise De Navigation A Vapeur and Others v. English & American Shipping Company, 9 Lloyds List L.R. 464 (1921), the English Court of Appeal held that the French government, as time charterer of a vessel, could not recover charter hire even though it had actually pai…
discussed Cited "see" Venore Transportation Co. v. M/V Struma
4th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1978); Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation v. Marshland Dreding Co., 455 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1972); Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. v. M/V Marathonian, 392 F.Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d 528 F.2d 907 (2d Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Oriental Republic Uruguay
D. Del. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir.1978) (Robins rule precluded plaintiff towing company from recovering economic losses arising from defendant’s interference with plaintiffs business expectancies in connection with defendant’s negligent construction of lock which caused closure of river to navigation); In re Complaint of Marine Navigation Sulphur Carriers, Inc., 507 F.Supp. 205 (E.D.Va.1980) (in action arising from defendant ship’s collision with bridge that resulted in.temporary closure- thereof, court held- that Robins rule precluded r…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Finley v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F. 2d 1023 (CA5 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 908 (1979); Ortiz v. United States Government, 595 F. 2d 65 (CA1 1979); Edwards v. United States, 672 F. Supp. 910 (ED Va. 1987); Kennedy v. United States, 643 F. Supp. 1072 (EDNY 1986); Verdi v. United States, 636 F. Supp. 114 (EDNY 1986); Fried v. United States, 579 F. Supp. 1212 (ND Ill. 1983); Kattner v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 240 (ED Tex. 1984); Rogers v. United States, 568 F. Supp. 894 (EDNY 1983); DeBellas v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 999 (SDNY 1982); Johnston v. Unit…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kennedy v. United States
E.D.N.Y · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908 , 99 S.Ct. 1215 , 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979); Rogers v. United States, 568 F.Supp. 894 (E.D.N.Y.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cheltenham Supply Corp. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
E.D. Pa. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908 , 99 S.Ct. 1215 , 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979) (primary claim brought under Federal Tort Claims Act); Dumansky v. United States, 486 F.Supp. 1078 (D.N.J.1980) (Fed *1108 eral Torts Claims Act); Obenshain v. Halliday, 504 F.Supp. 946 (E.D.Va.1980) (Federal Tort Claims Act); Pearce v. United States, 450 F.Supp. 613 (D.Kan.1978) (Federal Tort Claims Act); Morse Electro Products Corp. v. S.S.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dumansky v. United States
D.N.J. · 1980 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Ortiz v. United States Government, 595 F.2d 65 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 100 S.Ct. 678 , 62 L.Ed.2d 652 (1980) and Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908 , 99 S.Ct. 1215 , 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979) (exercising pendent party jurisdiction in an FTCA action) with Rack v. United States, 570 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1978) and Ayala v. United States, 550 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. dismissed, 435 U.S. 982 , 98 S.Ct. 1635 , 56 L.Ed.2d 76 (1978) (declining to exercise pendent party jurisdiction in an FTCA action).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc., a Corporation
v.
The United States of America, a Corporation Sovereign, Eby & Associate of Alabama, a Joint Venture and Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc. A Corporation, Equipment Rental and Sales Co., Inc.
78-1021.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 7, 1978.
577 F.2d 1023
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

577 F.2d 1023

DICK MEYERS TOWING SERVICE, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES of America, a corporation sovereign, Eby &
Associate of Alabama, a joint venture and Martin K. Eby
Construction Co., Inc. a corporation, Equipment Rental and
Sales Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-1021
Summary Calendar.[*]

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 7, 1978.

Michael A. Wermuth, J. M. Druhan Jr., Thomas P. Ollinger Jr., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

James A. Lewis, Atty., Barbara A. Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald R. Glancz, Atty., Admiralty & Shipping Section, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., J. R. Brooks, U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for the U. S.

McDaniel, Hall, Parsons & Conerly, Jack J. Hall, Tom E. Ellis, Birmingham, Ala., for Eby & Associates of Ala.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~1023]1

In August 1975, plaintiff Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. (Meyers), was operating tugboats and other vessels on the Black Warrior River in Alabama, near the Bankhead Lock and Dam. On August 11, 1975, the lock failed and the river was closed to traffic until five months later when the lock was repaired and the river reopened to commerce. Plaintiff alleged that the failure of the lock was due to defendant Eby's negligent construction of the lock and defendant United States' negligence in maintaining and operating it. The cessation of commerce and transportation caused economic harm to the plaintiff's business and recovery in the amount of $250,000 was sought.[1]

2

The case is before us on appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant. We affirm.

3

The plaintiff seeks recovery for damages flowing from the defendant's negligent interference with his business expectancies. Although the plaintiff has cited much learned opinion and respected authority in support of his suggestion that we follow the Second Circuit's lead and forsake "the rock-strewn path of 'negligent interference with contract' for more familiar tort terrain," Petition of Kinsman Transit Co., 388 F.2d 821, 824 (2d Cir. 1968), we are convinced that prior authority in this circuit precludes us from departing from the rule that merely negligent interference with contract rights is not actionable. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Marshland Dredging Co., 455 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1972).[2]

4

Appellant recognizes that Kaiser Aluminum, supra, and Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927), raise substantial barriers to his recovery. He, therefore, attempts to distinguish these cases on their facts and narrowly limit the sphere of their application.

5

The facts of each case may be stated quite summarily. The plaintiff in Robins, a time-charterer of a vessel, sued the owner of a dry dock which had negligently damaged the vessel's propeller. The plaintiff sought recovery for damages suffered as a result of the vessel's unavailability on the charter date. In an opinion by Justice Holmes, the Supreme Court denied recovery, holding that "as a general rule, . . . a tort to the person or property of one man does not make the tortfeasor liable to another merely because the injured person was under a contract with that other unknown to the doer of the wrong." 275 U.S. at 309, 48 S.Ct. at 135.

6

Kaiser Aluminum, like Robins, involved a three-party situation. Kaiser sued Marshland for consequential damages suffered by Kaiser when one of Marshland's barges dropped a heavy anchor on a gas pipeline owned by a third party, Sugar Bowl Gas Company. The pipeline supplied gas to Kaiser's plant which had to be shut down temporarily as a result of the interruption of gas supplies. We affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant, stating that recovery was barred as a matter of law because there was(1) no contention that the interference with Kaiser's contract rights was intentional; (2) no evidence that Marshland had knowledge of the existence of the contract between Kaiser and Sugar Bowl Gas, and (3) no showing of facts, by affidavit or otherwise, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, sufficient to create a genuine issue for trial, of anything more than merely the negligent interference with contract rights.

8

Appellant attempts to avoid the effect of Robins and Kaiser Aluminum by analogizing his position to that of the vessel owner in Robins and the pipeline owner in Kaiser Aluminum rather than to the plaintiffs in those cases, third parties "incidentally injured" by the defendants' conduct. See In Re Lyra Shipping Co., 360 F.Supp. 1188, 1190-91 (E.D.La.1973).[3] Arguing that under ordinary rules of tort liability, the defendants here owed a duty of care to those persons dependant on continued operation of the dam and locks, Meyers contends that the defendants breached a duty running directly to him. In consequence, he seeks recovery not for damages consequent upon breach of a duty running to a third party, but upon breach of a duty running to him.

9

The problem with this argument is that it misconceives the basis for denial of recovery in the cases following Robins and exemplified by Kaiser Aluminum. The law has traditionally been reluctant to recognize claims based solely on harm to the interest in contractual relations or business expectancy. The critical factor is the character of the interest harmed and not the number of parties involved. In consequence, as stated in Kaiser Aluminum, a plaintiff may not recover for interference with his contractual relations unless he shows that the interference was intentional or knowing. While the wisdom of that traditional reluctance is open to debate, the rule based upon it is too well-settled to be overturned by a panel of this court.[4]

[*~1024]10

AFFIRMED.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

1

Jurisdiction over the claim against the United States is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1346. Jurisdiction over the private parties was proper under the doctrine of "pendant party" jurisdiction recognized in this circuit. See Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. United States, 519 F.2d 1184, 1193-96 (5th Cir. 1975). Jurisdiction could also have been founded on the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts since the Black Warrior River was stipulated to be a navigable waterway and the tort claims here have a maritime nexus. See In re Motor Ship Pacific Carrier, 489 F.2d 152 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 417 U.S. 931, 94 S.Ct. 2643, 41 L.Ed.2d 235 (1974); Kelly v. Smith, 485 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 416 U.S. 969, 94 S.Ct. 1991, 40 L.Ed.2d 558 (1974)

2

We have been much enlightened by the excellent briefs submitted by the parties in this case and commend all counsel for their efforts

3

The Second Circuit appears to have limited the Robins rule to the time charterer context in which it was first enunciated, Petition of Kinsman Transit Co., 388 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1968), and in which it survives. Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. v. M/V Marathonian, 528 F.2d 907 (2d Cir. 1975). This entire subject is ably and exhaustively canvassed in the district court's opinion in the Marathonian case. See Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. v. M/V Marathonian, 392 F.Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y.1975)

4

Appellant's attempt to avoid the effect of the conventional rule by couching his claim in the language of private action based on a public nuisance is unavailing. Again, the difficulty with appellant's case is that he seeks recovery for negligent interference with his business expectancies. Rephrasing the claim as a public nuisance claim does not change its essential character