## Facts

- In December 1979, the M/V *Donau Maru* spilled fuel oil into Boston Harbor.
- The spill prevented the vessel *Tamara* from docking at its intended nearby berth.
- The *Tamara* discharged cargo at an alternative pier and incurred additional labor, fuel, transport, and docking costs.
- The plaintiffs (the *Tamara*, her owners, and her charterers) sought damages equal to these added operating expenses.
- The plaintiffs did not allege any physical damage to the *Tamara* or its cargo; the claimed harm was solely financial.
- The defendants were the M/V *Donau Maru* and her owners, sued in admiralty on a negligence theory.

## Issues

1. Whether a negligent actor in admiralty owes a tort duty to compensate third parties for foreseeable, purely economic losses when neither the plaintiffs nor their property suffered physical injury.
2. Whether established maritime precedent bars recovery for negligent financial harm absent a recognized “special circumstance.”
3. Whether policy concerns about indeterminate and disproportionate liability justify limiting negligence liability despite foreseeability.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on the pleadings.
- The court assumed the plaintiffs’ financial losses were foreseeable but held that foreseeability alone does not permit recovery for pure economic loss in negligence.
- Relying on the *Robins Dry Dock* and *Kinsman II* line of cases, the court concluded that plaintiffs outside a physically injured property interest generally cannot recover for negligent interference causing only financial loss.
- The court found no physical injury to the plaintiffs or their property and no other “special feature” warranting an exception.
- The court declined to create a new exception for parties claiming they were “particularly damaged” beyond general economic effects from the spill.

## Legal Principles

- In maritime negligence, purely economic loss is generally not recoverable absent physical injury to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s property, or another recognized special circumstance.
- Foreseeability of financial harm does not, by itself, define the scope of duty or establish compensable negligence damages for economic loss.
- Limiting recovery for economic loss serves policy goals, including avoiding administratively unmanageable claims, preventing disproportion between fault and aggregate liability, and avoiding open-ended liability from widespread economic ripple effects.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that the *Tamara* interests could not recover added operating expenses caused by a negligent oil spill because the claimed harm was purely economic and unaccompanied by physical injury or a recognized exception; the court treated this limitation as required by maritime precedent and supported by concerns about indeterminate and disproportionate liability.


Barber Lines A/S v. M/V Donau Maru, 764 F.2d 50 (1st Cir. 1985)