275 U.S. 303
The respondents, time charterers of the steamship Bjornefjord, filed a libel against Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. to recover for the loss of use of the steamer between August 1 and August 15, 1917.1
By the terms of the charter party the steamer was to be docked at least once in every six months.2 Payment of the hire was to be suspended until she was again in proper state for service.3 In accordance with these terms the vessel was delivered to the petitioner and docked.4 While there the propeller was so injured by the petitioner’s negligence that a new one had to be put in, thus causing the delay for which this suit is brought.5
The petitioner seems to have had no notice of the charter party until the delay had begun.6 On August 10, 1917, it was formally advised by the respondents that they should hold it liable.7 It settled with the owners on December 7, 1917, and received a release of all their claims.8
The present libel in a cause of contract and damage seems to have been brought in reliance upon an allegation.9 The allegation stated that the contract for dry docking between the petitioner and the owners was made for the benefit of the libellants and was incidental to the aforesaid charter party.10 The District Court allowed recovery on the ground that the respondents had a property right in the vessel.11 It is not argued that there was a demise.12 The owners remained in possession.13 The libellants recovered in both Courts below.14 A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.15
Whether time charterers of a vessel may recover damages from a dry dock company for negligent injury to the vessel that caused loss of use, when the charterers were not parties to the dry docking contract?16
As a general rule, at least, 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.17
No. The petitioner injured the propeller belonging to the owners.18 The respondents' loss of use arose only through their separate contract with the owners.19 The petitioner had no notice of the charter party until the delay had begun.20 The damage was material to the respondents only as it caused the delay in making the repairs.21 That delay would be a wrong to no one except for the petitioner’s contract with the owners.22
Time charterers may not recover damages from the dry dock company for the loss of use.23
Whether the dry docking contract between the vessel owners and the dry dock company was made for the benefit of the time charterers?24
Before a stranger can avail himself of the exceptional privilege of suing for a breach of an agreement, to which he is not a party, he must, at least show that it was intended for his direct benefit.25
No. The libellants were not parties to that contract.26 They were not in any respect beneficiaries of the dry docking agreement.27 They were not entitled to sue for a breach of it even under the most liberal rules that permit third parties to sue on a contract made for their benefit.28 The contract was between the dry dock company and the vessel owners alone.29
The dry docking contract was not made for the benefit of the time charterers.30
Whether time charterers possess a property right in the chartered vessel that is protected against negligent injury by a third party who had no notice of the charter?31
The owners remained in possession with no demise of the vessel, so charterers hold no property right in the vessel protected against unintended injuries by third persons who know nothing of the charter.32
No. The District Court allowed recovery on the ground that the respondents had a property right in the vessel.33 It is not argued that there was a demise. The owners remained in possession. The respondents have no interest protected by the law against unintended injuries inflicted upon the vessel by third persons who know nothing of the charter.34
Time charterers do not possess a property right in the chartered vessel protected against such negligent injury.35
Whether a tortfeasor who damages a vessel is liable to time charterers for resulting loss of use when that loss arises solely from the charterers' separate contract with the vessel owners?36
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, and the law does not spread its protection so far.37
No. The damage was material to the respondents only as it caused the delay in making the repairs.38 That delay would be a wrong to no one except for the petitioner’s contract with the owners. The respondents have no claim either in contract or in tort.39 They cannot get a standing by the suggestion that if some one else had recovered it he would have been bound to pay over a part by reason of his personal relations with the respondents.40
A tortfeasor is not liable to time charterers for resulting loss of use arising solely from their separate contract with the vessel owners.41