Saratoga Fishing Company v. J. M. Martinac & Company and Marco Seattle Inc. (520 U.S. 875)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 2, 1997 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 520 U.S. 875 · 117 S. Ct. 1783
- Decided
- June 2, 1997
- Term
- October Term 1996
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue before us concerns limits upon the damages that a tort plaintiff in admiralty can recover for physical damage to property caused by a defective product. In East River S. S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 U. S. 858 (1986), the Court held that an admiralty tort plaintiff cannot recover for the physical damage the defective product causes to the “product itself”; but the plaintiff can recover for physical damage the product causes to “other property.” In this case all agree that the “product itself” consists at least of a ship as built and outfitted by its original manufacturer and sold to an initial user. This case asks how this corner of tort law treats the physical destruction of extra equipment (a skiff, a fishing net, spare parts) added by the initial user after the first sale and then resold as part of the ship when the ship itself is later resold to a subsequent user. Is that added equipment part of the “product itself,” in which case the plaintiff cannot recover in tort for its physical loss? Or is it “other property,” in which case the plaintiff can recover? We conclude that it is “other property.” Hence (assuming other tort law requirements are satisfied) admiralty’s tort rules permit recovery. I This case arises out of an engine room fire and flood that led to the sinking of the fishing vessel M/V…
Excerpt of a 16,884-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.