In this New York case, defendant presented his puppy to plaintiff-animal hospital for treatment. After discussions between about the cost of the care, defendant apparently felt that he would not be allowed to retrieve the puppy from the hospital's possession. As a consequence, plaintiff sent a letter to defendant describing the balance owed, and stating that the hospital would retain the puppy for 10 more days after which it would "take care of the dog in accordance with the legal methods available to dispose of abandoned dogs." The issue on appeal is whether this letter qualified as noticed required by the Agriculture and Markets Act, Sec. 331. The court found that it did not comply with the statutory requirements and thus, plaintiff was responsible for defendant's loss of his puppy valued at $200 at trial. Plaintiff was entitled to a judgment on its complaint for the costs of care amounting to $309.
A woman whose cat was attacked while being boarded at veterinarian's office brought claims against veterinarian and animal hospital. Trial court dismissed claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the Court of Appeals reversed holding dismissal was not warranted.
Plaintiff was was the owner of a certain roan mare of the value of $200; that, on or about the 21st day of April, 1888, the said mare became and was sick with some disease then unknown to plaintiff in kind and character; that, at said date last aforesaid, and long prior thereto, the defendant claimed to be, and advertised and held himself out to the public to be, a veterinary surgeon, and asked to be employed as such in the treatment of sick and diseased horses. The court held that a veterinary surgeon, in the absence of a special contract, engages to use such reasonable skill, diligence, and attention as may be ordinarily expected of persons in that profession. He does not undertake to use the highest degree of skill, nor an extraordinary amount of diligence. In other words, the care and diligence required are such as a careful and trustworthy man would be expected to exercise. The case was remanded for determination of further proofs.
This action was brought by Dale C. Bedford, appellant, on an amended complaint on two counts seeking special damages in the amount of $750, unspecified general damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages against E.E. Jorden, a Billings, Montana veterinarian and his partnership. The first count of complaint alleges that the defendant, Dr. Jorden, willfully or by gross negligence broke, or allowed to be broken a wing of a parrot belonging to the appellant, Bedford. The second count alleges that Dr. Jorden and his business willfully, wantonly or maliciously failed to provide adequate care for the parrot. The court found that the interrogatories and depositions of all witnesses, including the appellant, indicate that there was no evidence produced that would establish a prima facie case of negligence, let alone intentional cruelty or inhumanity to animals.
Defendant-farmer filed a counterclaim for damages for the erroneous determination by the veterinarian that certain cow was not pregnant (plaintiff veterinarian used a "punch test" - where a fist is struck against the abdomen of a cow to determine pregnancy rather than the industry-standard rectal examination). As a result, defendant-farmer sold the cow for $170 versus the $550 he could have received for a pregnant cow. The Court found that it was erroneous for the circuit court to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, as diagnoses and scientific treatment are improper subjects for the doctrine. The mere proof that the diagnosis later on turned out to be erroneous is insufficient to support a judgment, the court stated.
After plaintiff's cat escaped while at the defendant's animal hospital, Rock sued Dr. Carroll d/b/a The Animal Care Clinic for conversion or breach of bailment and emotional distress, seeking punitive damages and attorney fees. The court agreed with Carroll that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on punitive and vindictive damages, as vindictive or punitive damages are recoverable only when a defendant acts maliciously, wilfully, or with a wanton disregard of the rights of others. Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim also must fail because defendant's conduct was not outrageous or egregious.
Carter v. Louisiana State University 520 S.O.2d 383 (La. 1988).
Plaintiff horse owner sought review by writ of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, State of Louisiana, which held in favor of defendants, a veterinarian and his insurer, in the owner's action for veterinary malpractice that had arisen from the amputation of a horse's tail. The court held defendants were not exculpated from liability under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2794 and La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2316, 2320, where the horse had his tail wrapped too tightly resulting in avascular necrosis from loss of blood supply, gangrene, and amputation. The court held in favor of the owner, reversed the judgment of the appellate court, and reinstated the judgment of the trial court (including $34,000 in damages).
A city veterinarian who worked for the Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care (BARC) brought an action against the city, arguing that he was wrongfully terminated under the Whistleblower’s Act. The vet contended that he reported several instances of abuses by BARC employees to the division manager. In upholding the trial court’s decision to award Levingston over $600,000 in damages, the appellate court ruled the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the veterinarian was terminated due to his report . Contrary to the city’s assertion, the court held that BARC was an appropriate law enforcement authority under the Act to report violations of section 42.09 of the Texas Penal Code committed by BARC employees. Opinion Withdrawn and Superseded on Rehearing by City of Houston v. Levingston , 221 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App., 2006).
This opinion substitutes City of Houston v. Levingston, 2006 WL 241127 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.)), which is withdrawn.
A veterinarian's license was revoked by the Ohio Veterinarian Medical Licensing Board and the vet challenged the revocation of his license. The trial court found the vet guilty of gross incompetence and he appealed claiming there was no definition of gross incompetence in the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding no specific definition was required.
Plaintiffs brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship after defendant animal hospital performed unnecessary surgery based on a mix-up of x-rays. The court denied the first claim, finding the defendant's conduct did not meet the "extreme and outrageous" conduct test. With regard to plaintiff's claim for loss of a unique chattel and for loss of the dog's companionship and comfort, the court observed that, under Pennsylvania law, a dog is personal property, and, under no circumstances under the law of Pennsylvania, may there be recovery for loss of companionship due to the death of an animal.
Appellant dog owners challenged the decision of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Tarrant County (Texas), which granted summary judgment in favor of appellee veterinary clinic in appellants' negligence, misrepresentation, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee veterinary clinic because appellee's veterinarians provided affidavits that were sufficiently factually specific, describing experience, qualifications, and a detailed account of the treatment, so that appellee negated the element of the breach of the standard of care, and because Deceptive Trade Practice Act claims did not apply to state licensed veterinarians.
Plaintiff claimed damages for the death of five pedigreed Norwegian Elkhound puppies resulting from the negligence of defendant, Hugh L. Caraway, a duly licensed veterinarian. Specifically, defendant allegedly failed to make proper diagnostic tests, failed to give proper treatment for coccidia from which the puppy died, although the defendant had professional knowledge that the puppy was suffering from that disease, and failed to exercise the standard of care required by the average prudent veterinarian in the community. The court first noted the difficulty in diagnosing distemper. It also found the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in applicable in the instant case, primarily for the reason that the instant case involves a question of diagnosis and treatment of a professional nature which in itself requires judgment.
Petitioner-veterinarian sought judicial review of veterinary medical examining board's denial of his application for renewal of his license to practice, and the permanent revocation of his right to practice veterinary medicine in Oregon. The Court held that there was ample evidence ample evidence to support board's finding that petitioner was guilty of unprofessional conduct for misrepresentation to dog owner of surgical services allegedly rendered, whether the standard adopted be that of 'clear and convincing evidence,' as petitioner urges, or that of 'reliable, probative and substantial evidence' (ORS 183.480(7)(d)), as urged by respondent.
A veterinarian agreed to house, transport, and care for an elephant at no charge other than the actual expenses incurred therewith. One evening, the elephant ingested some poison left in its stall by the veterinarian and later died. On appeal of the trial court award to plaintiff, the Court disagreed with defendant’s contention that he, as a gratuitous depositary, could only be held liable for gross negligence, willful misconduct, or fraud. In fact, the civil code in Louisiana, states the burden of a depositary is "that of ordinary care which may be expected of a prudent man." However, an agreement between the parties was found to release Dr. Cane of liability from negligent acts.
Plaintiffs sued defendant for the death of their racehorses resulting from alleged veterinary malpractice. The court held that a genuine issue of material fact as to whether veterinarian's actions comported with professional standard of care in treating racehorses precluded summary judgment. However, the owners were not entitled to recover damages for their emotional distress as result of veterinarian's alleged negligent destruction of horses. Nebraska law has generally regarded animals as personal property and emotional damages cannot be had for the negligent destruction of personal property.
Defendant-veterinarian sought appeal of a judgment against him for malpractice resulting from the injury to plaintiff’s thoroughbred colt that resulted in its destruction. The Court of Appeals held that an examination of the record revealed that sufficient evidence was produced to put in issue the question of whether appellant used such skill and attention as may ordinarily be expected of careful and skillful persons in his profession. Thus, the issue was correctly submitted to a jury.
A Texas horse owner brought action against horse farm for negligence and breach of implied warranty in connection with the death of a horse in care of horse farm. On appeal of a decision in favor of the horse owner, the Court of Appeals held that by asking veterinarian if veterinarian told the horse owner that the horse died because it was not brought to veterinary clinic soon enough, the horse farm opened the door, and thus, the previously-rejected hearsay testimony regarding horse owner's conversation with veterinarian was admissible for limited purpose of impeaching veterinarian's testimony. Thus, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The Slensky's took their ill beagle to Defendant's Animal Hospital for routine vaccinations and examinations due to the dog's loose stools for four days. X-rays of the dog were taken, and when the dog was returned to the Slensky's, where it then collapsed. Defendant instructed them to take the dog to the emergency clinic, where it later died. The family filed a complaint with the Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Defendant was later convicted of gross negligence and incompetence, an ethics violation, and for using an unlicensed veterinary technician. His license was suspended and he was placed on probation. The Court held that Defendant: (1) could be assessed costs of the proceeding; (2) he could not be assessed attorney's fees; (3) the Board could award expert witness fees above the statutory cap; (4) the Board failed to justify the imposition of costs for an investigator; and (5) statutes did not permit the employment of an unlicensed veterinary technician.
Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. 2013 WL 6729873 (Tex. App. Dec. 19, 2013), review denied (May 16, 2014) Plaintiff acquired an indoor/outdoor cat with an unknown medical and vaccination history. Plaintiff took cat to defendant for treatment and the cat received a vaccination. The cat soon developed a golf-ball-sized mass that contained a quarter-sized ulceration which was draining “matter” on the cat's right rear leg. When plaintiff returned the cat to the defendant, defendant diagnosed the cat with an infection, prescribed an antibiotic for treatment, and instructed Gonzalez to return if the cat's symptoms did not improve. When the cat's symptoms did not improve, plaintiff took the cat to another veterinarian who diagnosed the cat with vaccine-associated sarcoma. The cat had to be eventually euthanized. Acting pro se, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging that defendant failed to: (1) inform her of vaccine-associated sarcoma risk; (2) adhere to feline vaccination protocols; and (3) properly diagnose vaccine-associated sarcoma in the cat, which resulted in the loss of her life. On appeal, plaintiff asserted that the trial court erred by granting defendant's no-evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment. After examining the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences, the court concluded that the plaintiff brought forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence establishing the relevant standard of care to prove her malpractice claims. The trial court, therefore, erred by granting the no-evidence summary judgment. On the traditional summary judgment claim, the court held that that the defendant's evidence did not conclusively prove that a veterinarian complied with the applicable standard of care in light of another veterinarian's report to the contrary. The trial court, therefore, erred by granting defendant's traditional motion for summary judgment. The case was reversed and remanded.
Cattle breeders sued veterinarian who negligently vaccinated two cows leading to slaughter of one and quarantine of the herd was quarantined. The Court of Appeals held that breeders: (1) could not recover lost profits from unborn and future unborn calves; (2) could not recover damages for injury to business reputation; (3) could not recover for default in payment of financial obligations or collection procedures brought against them; (4) were properly allowed to present evidence as to the loss of net profits as result of cancellation of spring production sale and subsequent delay in selling animals; and (5) interest expense was not a variable cost for purposes of action.
Hendrickson v. Tender Care Animal Hospital Corporation 312 P.3d 52 (2013) Dog owner brought claims of professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, lack of informed consent, reckless breach of a bailment contract, and emotional distress after her golder retriever, Bear, died following a routine neutering procedure. After the surgery, Bear was bloated and vomiting, and the owner alleged that the animal hospital failed to properly inform her of his condition. As a result, the owner treated Bear with a homeopathic remedy instead of the prescription medication given to her by the hospital and Bear's condition worsened and eventually caused his death.
Appellant dog owners sought review of the decision from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio), which granted the motion to dismiss filed by appellee veterinarian on the basis that the breach of contract and negligence action filed against the veterinarian was barred by the one-year statute of limitations on malpractice claims under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.11(A). On appeal, the court reversed and held that § 2305.11(A) applied only to physicians, attorneys, and other professional specifically delineated in the statute, not veterinarians. The court reversed the dismissal of the owners' breach of contract and negligence action filed against the veterinarian and remanded for further proceedings.
Hohenstein v. Dodds 10 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 1943) This is an action against a licensed veterinarian to recover damages for his alleged negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff's pigs. Plaintiff alleged defendant-veterinarian negligently vaccinated his purebred pigs for cholera. The court held that a n expert witness's opinion based on conflicting evidence which he is called upon to weigh is inadmissible. Further, a n expert witness may not include the opinion of another expert witness as basis for his own opinion.
Respondent Raymond Kerlin, D.V.M., appealed a decision of the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Board), finding him guilty of "gross malpractice or gross neglect" in the practice of veterinary medicine after an employee at his office (his wife) stated that the office could not treat a deathly ill kitten after the owners requested payment by credit (apparently not accepted at the office). In this case, the court observed nothing in the findings of facts to support a conclusion that respondent was aware of the exchange which occurred between the kitten’s owner and Mrs. Kerlin in time for him to have prevented the situation or to have taken remedial steps. Nothing adduced at trial proved that Dr. Kerlin followed the policy of rejecting requests for emergency treatment on credit. Thus, the court concluded that the State failed to establish that respondent was guilty of a violation or of conduct warranting disciplinary action for "gross malpractice", and the decision of the Board was reversed.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for veterinary malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal. The court reaffirmed that it is well established that a pet owner in New York cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent destruction of a dog.
Petitioner pet owner alleged that respondent veterinarian took her dog to be spayed, and left the animal on heating pads, which resulted in serious burns, so petitioner filed a claim for damages on the basis of gross negligence, damage to property, and emotional distress. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on the claims for punitive damages and emotional distress and, on a subsequent motion, transferred the case to the county court as a claim for less than the circuit court jurisdictional amount. The appellate court held that there remained a jury question on the issues of gross negligence and physical and mental pain and suffering as claimed by petitioner.
This Arizona based appeal arises out of a veterinary malpractice action filed by plaintiff/appellant David Kaufman against defendants/appellees, William Langhofer, DVM, and Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic over the death of Salty, Kaufman's scarlet macaw. The main issue on appeal is whether a pet owner is entitled to recover emotional distress and loss of companionship damages over the death of his or her pet. Plaintiff argues that the court here should “expand” Arizona common law to allow a pet owner to recover emotional distress damages and damages for loss of companionship in a veterinarian malpractice action. While the court acknowledged the emotional distress Kaufman suffered over Salty's death, it noted that Dr. Langhofer's negligence did not directly harm Kaufman. Thus, the court felt that it would not be appropriate to expand Arizona common law to allow a pet owner to recover emotional distress or loss of companionship damages because that would offer broader compensation for the loss of a pet than for the loss of a human.
Plaintiff filed for a Writ of Certiorari requesting that his case be transfered from circuit court to county court. He was seeking damages for emotional distress, following alleged veterinary malpractice by the defendant. The Court held that Florida would not consider pets to be part of an actual family, that damages for emotional distress will not be permitted, and therefore the plaintiff did not have sufficient damages to met the circuit court jurisdictional amount. Petition denied..
Dog owners brought negligence action against veterinarian and animal hospital after their dog suffered injuries while under the veterinarian's and the hospital's care. The Appeals Court held that the trial court did not err by allowing the jury to consider plaintiff-owners' mental pain and suffering, and that the jury could reasonably have viewed defendants' neglectful conduct resulting in the dog's injury to have amounted to great indifference to plaintiffs' property.
Plaintiff pled damages that included plaintiff's pain and suffering, extreme fright, shock, mortification, and the loss of the companionship of his dog after negligent treatment by defendant animal hospital killed his dog. The court noted that there is no Michigan precedent that permits the recovery of damages for emotional injuries allegedly suffered as a consequence of property damage. Although this Court is sympathetic to plaintiff's position, it chose to defer to the Legislature to create such a remedy.
Ladnier v. Norwood 781 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff horse owner sought review of a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which found in favor of defendants, veterinarian and insurer, in an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's horse. The court affirmed the judgment that found defendants, veterinarian and insurer, not negligent in the death of a horse belonging to plaintiff horse owner because they met the statutorily required standard of care. Defendants did not breach a duty to warn because the risk of a fatal reaction to the drug they gave to the horse was common and was considered by equine specialists to be insubstantial.
This negligence action for both compensatory and punitive damages results from the premature cremation of 'Tiki,' a Toy Chihuahua dog, who died while undergoing apparently routine treatment for a skin condition. Plaintiff instructed the veterinarian to keep Tiki's body so that he could have an autopsy performed, but the dog's body was cremated before it could be claimed so that, according to plaintiff, defendant could avoid malpractice claims.
In this case, the court only determined that under the facts peculiar to this case, an action for damages was sufficiently alleged by the complaint and the defendant has failed to conclusively demonstrate the non-existence of all material issues of fact so as to be entitled to a summary final judgment.
Lindsey v. Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners Not Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2018 WL 1976577 (Tex. App., 2018) In 2015, Kristen Lindsey, who is a licensed veterinarian, killed a cat on her property by shooting it through the head with a bow and arrow. Lindsey had seen the cat fighting with her cat and defecating in her horse feeders and believed the cat to be a feral cat. However, there was evidence that the cat actually belonged to the neighbor and was a pet. Lindsey posted a photo of herself holding up the dead cat by the arrow. The photo was shared repeatedly and the story ended up reported on several news outlets. The Board received more than 700 formal complaints and more than 2,700 emails about the incident. In 2016 the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (the Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Lindsey seeking to revoke her license and alleging violations of the Veterinary Licensing Act and Administrative Rules. While the proceeding was pending, Lindsey filed a petition for declaratory judgment and equitable relief in the trial court. The grand jury declined to indict her for animal cruelty. Due to this, Lindsey asserted that the Board lacked the authority to discipline her because she had not been convicted of animal cruelty and her act did not involve the practice of veterinary medicine. The administrative law judges in the administrative-licensing proceeding issued a proposal for decision and findings of fact and conclusions of law which the Board adopted and issued a final order suspending Lindsey's license for five years (with four years probated). Lindsey then filed a petition for judicial review in trial court after the Board denied her motion for a rehearing. The trial court affirmed the Board's final order. This case involves two appeals that arise from the disciplinary proceeding filed against Lindsey by the Board. Lindsey appeals the first case (03-16-00549-CV) from the trial court denying her motion for summary judgment and granting the Board's motion for summary judgment and dismissing her suit challenging the Board's authority to bring its disciplinary action. In the second case (17-005130-CV), Lindsey appeals from the trial court affirming the Board's final decision in the disciplinary proceeding. Even though Lindsey was not convicted of animal cruelty, the Court of Appeals held that the Board possessed the authority to determine that the offense of animal cruelty was sufficiently connected to the practice of veterinary medicine. Lindsey also did not have effective consent from the neighbor to kill the cat. The Board had sufficient evidence that Lindsey tied her profession to the shooting of the cat through the caption that she put on the photo that was posted on social media. The Court of Appeals ultimately overruled Lindsey's challenges to the Board's authority to seek disciplinary action against her veterinary license in both appeals as well as her challenges regarding the findings of fact and conclusions by the administrative law judges. The Court affirmed the judgment in both causes of action.
Luethans v. Washington University 838 S.W.2d 117 (Mo.App. E.D. 1992) Plaintiff, a licensed veterinarian, appeals from the circuit court's order dismissing his case in a wrongful discharge case. Plaintiff contends that as an at-will employee he stated a cause of action for wrongful discharge under Missouri's public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine. Specifically, he pleaded that he was retaliated against and discharged because he performed a regulatory protected activity, i.e., reporting violations of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2143. The court agreed and reversed and remanded.
Dr. Massa sought judicial review of the gross malpractice finding and resulting license revocation in the circuit court after the circuit court reversed the Department's finding of gross malpractice as a conclusion against the manifest weight of the evidence. This finding arises from the death of plaintiff’s German Shepard, after Dr. Massa removed the dog’s healthy uterus and ovaries, while failing to treat the dog’s soon-to-be fatal thoracic condition. The Department's findings in this case could only be disturbed only upon Dr. Massa's showing that they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court held that the record in this case was plainly sufficient to support the Department's determination of gross malpractice in that Dr. Massa ignored the serious nature of Charlie's lung condition and proceeded to remove reproductive organs which, at least at the time of surgery, he knew or should have known to have been healthy.
Dog owner brought dog to veterinarian’s office where someone choked the dog, causing injuries that led to its death. The Court of Appeals held that the owner stated a veterinary malpractice claim against veterinarian because owner alleged that dog was choked while in veterinarian's care, that veterinarian failed to diagnose neck injury that proved fatal, performed unnecessary treatment out of greed, and refused to provide owner with medical explanation of dog's condition and death, all in violation of the veterinary licensing statute. The Court also held that violating the cruelty to animals statute was evidence of negligence, and that damages included economic loss, compensation for mental anguish, including future anguish. and punitive damages.
After defendant filed a stipulation admitting liability for a botched surgery on defendant's show dog that ultimately led to euthanization, a trial was held as to the issue of damages. Evidence adduced at trial showed that "Nemo" had been trained by plaintiff as a Schutzhund or "sport dog" in Schutzhund schooling. The court noted that while dogs are considered personal property in Ohio and market value is the standard award for such personal property, market value in this case was merely a "guideline." In addition to the loss of the specially trained dog, the court also found significant the loss of stud fees for the dog and potential future gains in sustaining the trial court's award of $5,000 in damages.
In this California case, the plaintiff appealed a demurrer granted by the trial court on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and portions of her complaint struck that sought damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship. The case stems from defendant-veterinarian's care of plaintiff's Maltese dog after surgery. Defendant also lied to plaintiff and falsified records concerning the treatment of the dog. On appeal of the trial court demurrer, this court held that an owner cannot recover emotional distress damages for alleged veterinary malpractice. The court found that it would be incongruous to impose a duty on a veterinarian to avoid causing emotional distress to the owner of the animal being treated, while not imposing such a duty on a doctor to the parents of a child receiving treatment.
The incident generating this dispute after two veterinary assistants claimed that Miller viciously beat plaintiff's dog Nera to death because he was having difficulty getting the dog from the basement recovery room to the waiting area upstairs where the dog would be picked up. The sole issue on this appeal is the dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from both the dog's death and the veterinarian's behavior during plaintiff's picketing of his business. Relying on both the Restatement (Second) of Torts and a prior decision inDaughen v. Fox, the court held that intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot legally be founded upon a veterinarian's behavior toward an animal.
An unlicensed Missouri equine dentist (Brooke Rene Gray) appeals an order from the circuit court enjoining and prohibiting her from doing business as "B & B Equine Dentistry," where she performed equine tooth floating and other acts. In 2007, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Board informed Ms. Gray that she was violating Missouri law by practicing veterinary medicine without a license. After she did not cease her activities, the Board referred the matter to the Attorney General, who then filed a petition on behalf of the Board to enjoin Ms. Gray's activities. On appeal, Ms. Gray contends that the court order violates the Missouri Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right to enjoy the "gains of their own industry." The court disagreed, finding that the State has a strong interest in regulating practices that involve public safety as is the case with veterinary medicine.
When the pet owner adopted a dog, she signed a contract agreeing to have her dog spayed at the vet's facility and to return the dog to the vet if it was sick. For days after the surgery the dog was ill so the other vet performed exploratory surgery and repaired a cut in the dog's intestine. The pet owner filed an action to recover the medical expenses and the lower court granted the vet's motion to dismiss. The reviewing court held that the language in the contract was not sufficiently clear and explicit to exculpate the vet from negligence because the vet was not a party to the contract and thus not a direct beneficiary of the contract.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the defendant's negligence in the diagnosis and the treatment of plaintiff's brood mare, which resulted in the mare's infertility. Plaintiff was required to show that Dr. Rogers did not exercise the care and diligence as is ordinarily exercised by skilled veterinarians doing the same type of work in the community, and that the failure to exercise the required skill and care was the cause of the injury. Experts testified at trial that the care exercised by Dr. Rogers met the standard of care of veterinarians practicing in the area, and had they been treating the mare, the treatment would not have differed substantially from that of Dr. Rogers. The Supreme Court held that the record is clear that the plaintiff failed to sustain his burden that the care of Dr. Rogers did not meet the standard of care of other practitioners practicing in the community.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether a complaint based upon an alleged breach of a bailment agreement states a cause of action for injury or death suffered by an animal that has been entrusted to a veterinarian for surgical and professional treatment. The court agreed with the trial court that the purpose for which an animal is entrusted to the care of a veterinarian is a material fact that must be considered in determining whether a plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action as a matter of law, and that Price's complaint failed to state a cause of action for professional negligence. The court held that allegations of breach of a bailment agreement are insufficient to state a cause of action against a veterinarian who has performed surgery on an animal when the animal suffers an injury as a result or does not survive the surgery.
Price v. Brown, V.M.D. 131 Montg. Co. L. R. 150 (1994) Plaintiff's bull dog went to defendant veterinarian for surgery to correct a prolapsed urethra. The dog died a few days later. The plaintiff then sought to recover the value of the dog on a strict theory of bailment. Defendant filed a preliminary objection asserting that this doctrine was inapplicable and could not afford relief. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim from which relief could be sought and dismissed the complaint. The court, however, allowed the plaintiff to amend the compliant.In holding to sustain the defendant's preliminary objection, the court reasoned that since veterinarians are part of a professional discipline, in order to recover damages for the injury or the death to an animal entrusted to a veterinarian's care, a plaintiff must prove professional negligence instead of a bailiff arrangement.
Rehn v. Fischley No. C0-95-813, 1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 1539 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
The doctor was a veterinarian and a member of the board of directors for the humane society. The director of the humane society asked her for advice on how to clean cat cages, and the doctor gave advice and donated a bottle of formalin, whereupon the employee who used the formalin suffered permanent lung damage. The employee commenced an action against the doctor and humane society for damages. The court held that although the doctor would not have advised using formalin if she was not a member of the board, this fact did not establish that giving the advice was within the scope of her responsibilities as a board member.
This appeal stems from an action against a defendant veterinarian for the alleged negligent vaccination of plaintiff’s pregnant hogs (gilts). The court articulated the standard of care: "As a veterinarian defendant was duty bound to bring to his service the learning, skill and care which characterizes the profession generally. In other words, the care and diligence required was that as a careful and trustworthy veterinarian would be expected to exercise. . . We are convinced the correct standard of the veterinarian's care should be held to that exercised generally under similar circumstances."
The plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. and Wyeth Corporation, seeking economic damages suffered from the purchase and injection of her dog with ProHeart® 6 to prevent heartworm. The complaint alleged products liability/failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of state deceptive business practices, among others. In 2004, defendants recalled ProHeart® 6 in response to a request by FDA due to reported adverse reactions. This Court found that Massachusetts law follows the traditional “economic loss rule,” where such losses are not recoverable in in tort and strict liability actions where there has been no personal injury or property damage. Here, the plaintiff was barred from recovering because she has not alleged any personal injury or property damage under her products liability claim. Further, plaintiff failed to show that defendants' deceptive act caused some injury and compsensable loss. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.


The mere mixing of smoking opium with the residue of opium that has been smoked, and heating the same, is not a manufacture of opium for smoking purpose within the meaning of § 36 of McKinley Tariff Law of October 1, 1890.
Criminal statutes ought not to be extended by construction.
A statute which is primarily designed as a taxing act to raise revenue on, and not one to suppress the manufacture of, a specified article will not be construed so as to subject the same substance more than once to the tax ,or to require surveillance over places where the secondary treatment is conducted as well a over the factory of primary manufacture.
The prohibition against manufacturing smoking opium under § 36 of the Tariff Act of 1890 is not more extensive than the clause taxing the article, and if the article produced is not taxable thereunder, there is no violation thereof in its production.
The facts, which involve the construction of provisions of § 36 of the McKinley Tariff Law in regard to the manufacture of opium, are stated in the opinion.
We have here under review a judgment of the district court sustaining a demurrer to two counts of an indictment for a violation of § 36 of the Act of Congress approved October 1, 1890, c. 1244, 26 Stat. 567, 620.
"That an internal-revenue tax of ten dollars per pound shall be levied and collected upon all opium manufactured in the United States for smoking purposes, and no person shall engage in such manufacture who is not a citizen of the United States, and who has not given the bond required by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue."
purposes, against the peace of the United States and their dignity, and contrary to the form of the statute,"
"did engage in the manufacture of opium for smoking purposes in and by employing and using a process by means of which a high-grade smoking opium is dissolved in water in any receptacle or container, and yen shee, which is the product of the partial combustion of smoking, or prepared, opium, remaining when the smoker has used such smoking, or prepared, opium for smoking purposes is in like manner dissolved in water, in any receptacle or container, and the said aqueous solution of yen shee is strained and purified so that all substances contained therein which are foreign to the opium content in the said solution, and to the water therein contained, are removed, and which said substances so removed consist of the product produced as the result of the partial combustion of prepared, or smoking, opium in the course of its use by the smoker for smoking purposes, and the said process is, further, that the said aqueous solution of yen shee thus strained and purified is mixed with the aforesaid solution of high grade smoking, or prepared, opium, and the two solutions thus mixed and combined are heated and cooked in any receptacle or vessel over a slow fire until a product is produced by such heating and cooking and by the evaporation of a part of the aqueous content of the said combined solution, which has the consistency and appearance of thick molasses, and which said product is known as smoking, or prepared, opium, and which said product is opium prepared for smoking purposes; against,"
"It appears that, when smoking opium has been produced, it may be smoked more than once. That is to say, the residuum left after a first smoking may be simply heated and smoked again. If to this residuum (known as yen shee) some additional smoking opium is added, each time it is reheated, the process of resmoking may be continued longer. We are of the opinion that the mere mixing of smoking opium with the residue of opium that has been smoked, and heating the same, is not a 'manufacture of opium for smoking purposes' within the meaning of the statute. The manufacture which the statute contemplates is complete when from the crude opium there has been produced the smoking opium, with which alone, as defendant contended, he operated, in its unsmoked and smoked condition. . . . We think there was error in the refusal to charge that, if the jury found that defendant only mixed smoking opium with the residue which remains after smoking, his act was not a manufacture of opium for smoking purposes within the meaning of the statute."
It appears that the primary manufacture of opium for smoking purposes is done by treating crude opium in such manner as to convert it into a different form, thus rendering it fit for smoking. It is conceded that this manufacture is subject to the tax prescribed by § 36 of the Act of 1890. And see Marks v. United States, 196 F. 476. The counts now under consideration describe two processes by which the residuum of opium remaining after smoking (yen shee) may be reconverted into a form fit for smoking, in the one case by dissolving it in water, straining and purifying the solution so as to remove foreign matter, and then heating and cooking the refined solution, and thereby producing an inferior grade of smoking opium; the other process differs in that an admixture of smoking opium of a high grade is employed together with the yen shee.
In the argument, counsel discussed the proper definition of the term "manufacturing," citing Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 128 U. S. 20, and United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 156 U. S. 14, to which may be added Anheuser-Busch Assoc. v. United States, 207 U. S. 556, 207 U. S. 559, which had to do with the drawback provision of the McKinley law (26 Stat. 567, 617, c. 1244, § 25).
But, aside from the general principle that criminal statutes ought not to be extended by construction, we have here the additional consideration that this statute was primarily designed as a taxing act. Section 36 must be read in connection with the accompanying administrative provisions, which render it clear that the tax was designed to yield substantial revenue, and not merely or primarily to prohibit the manufacture of smoking opium. It may easily be believed that if (irrespective of constitutional limitations upon its power) Congress were undertaking to stamp out the practice of opium smoking, it might prohibit such processes of reclaiming as were charged against the defendant in the second and third counts of this indictment. But it is not so easy to believe, in the absence of clear language requiring such a construction, that, in prescribing a revenue tax upon the manufacture of opium for smoking purposes, it intended to subject the same substance more than once to the tax, or to require surveillance over opium smoking resorts, in which, it would seem, such treatment of the residuum might most readily be conducted, the same as over a factory or other establishment where the primary conversion of crude opium into smoking opium is conducted.
Of course, the prohibition is not more extensive than the taxing clause, and so we are satisfied that the offenses charged in the second and third counts of this indictment are not within the denunciation of § 36 of the act.


Michael Jerome Lewis, an inmate on death row at Holman Correctional Facility, appeals the circuit court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P. We remand the case with instructions.
In September 2003, Lewis was convicted of murdering Timothy John Kaye during a kidnapping, an offense defined as capital by § 13A-5-40(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975. The jury recommended, by a vote of 10 to 2, that Lewis be sentenced to death. The circuit court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Lewis to death. Lewis appealed. In April 2007, this Court remanded the case to the Houston Circuit Court for that court to hold a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), hearing. See Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). Lewis's conviction and sentence were affirmed on return to remand. See Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (opinion on return to remand), aff'd, 24 So.3d 540 (Ala. 2009). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review. See Lewis v. Alabama, 558 U.S. 1078 (2009). This Court issued a certificate of judgment on June 17, 2009. See Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P.
In May 2010, Lewis filed a timely petition for postconviction relief attacking his conviction and sentence of death. Lewis filed amended petitions in April 2011, August 2011, and June 2014. After a two-day evidentiary hearing in August 2014, the circuit court issued a four-page order denying Lewis's requested postconviction relief. Lewis then appealed to this Court.
Lewis first argues that this case should be remanded to the Houston Circuit Court for that court to fully comply with the provisions of Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R. Crim. P., by making specific findings of facts concerning all the issues raised in Lewis's third amended petition. The State concedes that the circuit court did not make findings of facts concerning all the claims raised in Lewis's petition.
"The Court finds that the conflict of interest claims that Mr. [James W.] Parkman's prior representation of [state witnesses] Mr. [Johnny] Causey and Mr. [Mike] Harger adversely affected Mr. Parkman's performance are without merit. The petitioner has not shown that a conflict of interest actually affected the quality of Mr. Parkman's representation or dampened counsel's ardor of his defense in order to placate another client. The petitioner has not proven that counsel was ineffective or that the petitioner did not receive effective assistance of counsel in accordance with constitutional standards because of a conflict of interest.
"The Court finds that the defendant's attorneys were not such as to undermine the proper functioning on the adversarial process so that the trial or appeal of this case could not be relied upon to produce a just result. The Court finds that counsel's assistance was reasonable and effective considering all of the circumstances of the case. The Court further finds that the decisions made by counsel concerning the trial and appeal of this case and his trial strategy was the result of reasonable, professional judgment."
(C. 1705-1706.) The circuit court's "findings" are merely generalized conclusions that were not sufficient to comply with the specific requirements of Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R. Crim. P.
The record also reflects that within 30 days of the circuit court's issuing its order denying the petition, Lewis filed a "Motion to Reconsider, Alter and Amend Judgement." (C. 1709-30.) In that motion, Lewis argued that the circuit court failed to comply with Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R. Crim. P. (C. 1717-18.) The circuit court did not rule on this motion before it lost jurisdiction of the case. See Loggins v. State, 910 So.2d 146, 149 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (noting that trial court only retains jurisdiction of postconviction petition for only 30 days after ruling issued and that no postjudgment motion extends the jurisdiction of the court beyond that period). The circuit court issued a ruling on Lewis's postjudgment motion more than 60 days after its ruling on the postconviction petition.
Rule 32.9, Ala. R. Crim. P., provides that when an evidentiary hearing is held on a postconviction petition, the court "shall make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented." (Emphasis added.) Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R. Crim. P. The Alabama Supreme Court has classified Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R. Crim. P., as a "mandatory" provision of Rule 32. See Ex parte McCall, 30 So.3d 400, 404 (Ala. 2008).


Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 517 › Exxon Co., U.S. A. v. Sofec, Inc.
EXXON CO., U. S. A., ET AL. v. SOFEC, INC., ET AL.
Petitioner Exxon's oil tanker, the Exxon Houston, ran aground and was lost several hours after its "breakout" from a mooring facility owned and operated, or manufactured, by the various respondents. Exxon filed a complaint in admiralty against respondents, alleging, inter alia, negligence and breach of warranty. In granting respondents' motion to bifurcate the trial, the District Court limited the first phase thereof to the question whether the postbreakout conduct of the Houston's captain, Captain Coyne, was the superseding and sole proximate cause of the loss of the ship, leaving the issue of causation of the breakout itself for the second phase. Mter a bench trial, the court found that Captain Coyne's (and by imputation, Exxon's) extraordinary negligence was indeed the superseding and sole proximate cause of the Houston's grounding, and entered final judgment against Exxon. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Among other things, it rejected Exxon's legal argument that the doctrines of proximate causation and superseding cause are no longer applicable in admiralty in light of United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U. S. 397, in which this Court abandoned the "divided damages" rule previously applied in admiralty and adopted the comparative fault principle for allocating damages among responsible parties; held that the District Court's causation findings were well supported by the record and not clearly erroneous; ruled that the lower court did not err in rendering judgment against Exxon on its breach of warranty claims; and concluded that, under the circumstances, the bifurcation of the trial was not an abuse of discretion.
Held: A plaintiff in admiralty that is the superseding, and thus the sole proximate, cause of its own injury cannot recover part of its damages from tortfeasors or contracting partners whose blameworthy actions or breaches were causes in fact of the plaintiff's injury. Pp. 836-842.
that it was inapplicable in admiralty. There is nothing internally inconsistent in a system that apportions damages based upon comparative fault only among tortfeasors whose actions were proximate causes of an injury. Nor is there any repugnancy between the superseding cause doctrine, which is one facet of the proximate causation requirement, and a comparative fault method of allocating damages. Exxon may be correct that common-law proximate cause concepts are complex and sometimes confusing, but those concepts are generally thought to be a necessary limitation on liability. In ruling upon whether a defendant's blameworthy act was sufficiently related to the resulting harm to warrant imposing liability for that harm on the defendant, admiralty courts may draw guidance from, inter alia, the extensive body of state law applying proximate causation requirements and from treatises and other scholarly sources. Pp.836-839.
(b) Exxon's argument that the District Court erred in rendering judgment against it on its breach of warranty claims fares no better. Exxon errs in relying upon Italia Societa per Azioni di Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 376 U. S. 315, which does not purport to deal with the proximate causation limitation for damages on such claims and is not relevant here. Where the injured party is the sole proximate cause of the damage complained of, that party cannot recover in contract from a party whose breach of warranty is found to be a mere cause in fact of the damage. Although the principles of legal causation sometimes receive labels in contract analysis different from the "proximate causation" label most frequently employed in tort analysis, these principles nevertheless also restrict liability in contract. The finding that Captain Coyne's extraordinary negligence was the sole proximate cause of Exxon's injury suffices to cut off respondents' liability for that injury on a contractual breach of warranty theory as well. pp. 839-840.
(c) Also rejected is Exxon's argument that the lower courts' findings that Captain Coyne's extraordinary negligence was the sole proximate cause of Exxon's injury were in error. Although Exxon identifies some tension in the courts' various findings, it has not made the sort of "obvious and exceptional showing of error," Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U. S. 271, 275, that would justify this Court's reversal of the lower courts' ultimate conclusion. Pp. 840-841.
trial in the particular way that it did, the Court declines to address the argument. Pp.841-842.
Shirley M. Hufstedler argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.
In United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U. S. 397 (1975), we abandoned the "divided damages" rule previously applied to claims in admiralty for property damages, and adopted the comparative fault principle for allocating damages among parties responsible for an injury. In this case we affirm that the requirement of legal or "proximate" causation, and the related "superseding cause" doctrine, apply in admiralty notwithstanding our adoption of the comparative fault principle.
*Thomas J. Wagner and Chester D. Hooper filed a brief for the Maritime Law Association of the United States as amicus curiae.
pipeline through two floating hoses, pursuant to a contract between Exxon and respondent PRIl, when a heavy storm broke the chafe chain linking the vessel to the SPM. As the vessel drifted, the oil hoses broke away from the SPM. The parting of the second hose at approximately 1728 nautical time was designated below as the "breakout." The hoses were bolted to the ship, and a portion of the second hose remained attached to the ship. So long as the hose was attached to and trailing from the ship, it threatened to foul the ship's propeller, and consequently the ship's ability to maneuver was restricted.
During the 2 hours and 41 minutes following the breakout, the captain of the Houston, Captain Coyne, took the ship through a series of maneuvers described in some detail in the District Court's findings of fact. The District Court found that by 1803, a small assist vessel, the Nene, was able to get control of the end of the hose so that it was no longer a threat to the Houston. See 54 F.3d 570, 572 (CA9 1995). Between 1803 and 1830, Captain Coyne maneuvered the Houston out to sea and away from shallow water. The District Court, and on appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, found that by 1830, the Houston had successfully avoided the peril resulting from the breakout. App. to Pet. for Cert. 65; 54 F. 3d, at 578-579. The ship had "reached a safe position," App. to Pet. for Cert. 64, and was "heading out to sea and in no further danger of stranding," id., at 65; 54 F. 3d, at 578.
respondents are several affiliated corporations: Pacific Resources, Inc.; Hawaiian Independent Refinery, Inc.; PRI Marine, Inc.; and PRI International, Inc. (PRI!).
was unable to make effective use of a navigational chart to check for hazards. The courts found that this failure to plot fixes of the ship's position was grossly and extraordinarily negligent. App. to Pet. for Cert. 61; 54 F. 3d, at 578. The District Court found that "Captain Coyne's decisions were made calmly, deliberately and without the pressure of an imminent peril." App. to Pet. for Cert. 60. His failure to plot fixes after 1830 "was entirely independent of the fact of breakout; he voluntarily decided not to plot fixes in a situation where he was able to plot fixes." Id., at 64.
At 1956, Captain Coyne initiated a final turn toward the shore. Because he had not plotted the ship's position, Captain Coyne was unaware of its position until he ordered another crew member to plot the fix at 2004. Upon seeing the fix on the chart, the captain apparently realized that the ship was headed for a reef. Captain Coyne's ensuing efforts to avoid the reef came too late, and moments later the ship ran aground, resulting in its constructive total loss. The District Court found that Captain Coyne's decision to make this final turn "was not foreseeable." Id., at 65.
Exxon filed a complaint in admiralty against the HIRI respondents and respondent Sofec for, inter alia, the loss of its ship and cargo. The complaint contained claims for breach of warranty, strict products liability, and negligence. HIRI filed a complaint against several third-party respondents, who had manufactured and supplied the chafe chain that held the tanker to the SPM.
of Exxon's injury. The District Court granted the motion, limiting the first phase of the trial to the issue of proximate causation with respect to actions taken after the breakout, and leaving the issue of causation of the breakout itself for the second phase.
Following a 3-week bench trial in admiralty, the District Court found that Captain Coyne's (and by imputation, Exxon's) extraordinary negligence was the superseding and sole proximate cause of the Houston's grounding. Id., at 63. The court entered final judgment against Exxon with respect to the loss of the Houston, and Exxon appealed.
The Ninth Circuit held that the District Court's findings "that Captain Coyne had ample time, as well as opportunity and available manpower, to take precautions which would have eliminated the risk of grounding, and that his failure to do so amounted to extraordinary negligence, superseding any negligence of the defendants with regard to the breakout or provision of safe berth after the breakout," were "well supported by the record," and not clearly erroneous. 54 F. 3d, at 579. The court rejected Exxon's contention that the captain's actions were foreseeable reactions to the breakout; rather, it noted, Captain Coyne himself had explained that he did not plot fixes "because he felt it was unnecessary to do so." Id., at 578.
on its breach of warranty claims. "Where, as here, the district court finds the injured party to be the superseding or sole proximate cause of the damage complained of, it cannot recover from a party whose actions or omissions are deemed to be causes in fact, but not legal causes of the damage." Id., at 576. Finally, the court held that under the circumstances of the case, the District Court's bifurcation of the trial was not an abuse of discretion. We granted certiorari. 516 U. S. 983 (1995).
Exxon makes four arguments for the reversal of the judgment below: (1) that the superseding cause doctrine does not or should not apply in admiralty; (2) that respondents' breaches of warranty were causes in fact of the loss of the Houston and hence respondents should be liable for that loss; (3) that the lower courts' finding that Captain Coyne's extraordinary negligence was the sole proximate cause of the loss of the Houston was in error; and (4) that the District Court abused its discretion and deprived Exxon of due process in bifurcating the issue of proximate causation from the other issues.
Exxon's primary argument is that the proximate causation requirement, and the related superseding cause doctrine, are not or should not be applicable in admiralty. In particular, Exxon asserts that the lower courts' refusal to allocate any share of damages to parties whose fault was a cause in fact of Exxon's injury conflicts with our decision in Reliable Transfer.
"The doctrine of superseding cause is ... applied where the defendant's negligence in fact substantially contributed to the plaintiff's injury, but the injury was actually brought about by a later cause of independent origin that was not foreseeable. It is properly applied in admiralty cases.
2 Some commentators have suggested that there may be a distinction between a system allocating damages on the basis of comparative culpability, and a system allocating damages on the basis of both comparative culpability and the degree to which fault proximately or foreseeably contributed to an injury. W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 474 (5th ed. 1984) (hereinafter Keeton); 1 T. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 5-4, p. 167 (2d ed. 1994); Owen & Whitman, Fifteen Years Under Reliable Transfer: 19751990, Developments in American Maritime Law in Light of the Rule of Comparative Fault, 22 J. Mar. L. & Com. 445, 476-483 (1991). We continue to use the term "comparative fault" employed in Reliable Transfer, but we do not mean thereby to take a position on which of these systems is the appropriate one, assuming that there is in fact a distinction between them.
mate causation." 1 T. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law §5-3, pp. 165-166 (2d ed. 1994).
Indeed, the HIRI respondents assert that of the 46 States that have adopted a comparative fault system, at least 44 continue to recognize and apply the superseding cause doctrine. Brief for HIRI Respondents 28, and n. 31; id., at App. A (listing state-court decisions). Exxon does not take issue with this assertion and concedes that it is not aware of any state decision that holds otherwise. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10.
sequent loss of a patient's life, few judges would impose liability." Petition of Kinsman Transit Co., 338 F.2d 708, 725 (CA2 1964), quoted in 1 Schoenbaum, supra, § 5-3, at 164.
In ruling upon whether a defendant's blameworthy act was sufficiently related to the resulting harm to warrant imposing liability for that harm on the defendant, courts sitting in admiralty may draw guidance from, inter alia, the extensive body of state law applying proximate causation requirements and from treatises and other scholarly sources. See Keeton 279 (" 'The best use that can be made of the authorities on proximate cause is merely to furnish illustrations of situations which judicious men upon careful consideration have adjudged to be on one side of the line or the other''') (quoting 1 T. Street, Foundations of Legal Liability 110 (1906)).
Exxon's argument that the District Court erred in rendering judgment against Exxon on its breach of warranty claims fares no better. Exxon implicitly argues that because the respondents breached various contractual warranties, they were "best situated" to prevent the loss of the Houston; and Exxon invokes a passage from Italia Societa per Azioni di Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 376 U. S. 315 (1964). In Italia Societa, we held that a stevedore breaches its implied warranty of workmanlike service to a shipowner when the stevedore nonnegligently supplies defective equipment that injures one of its employees during stevedoring operations. That case does not purport to deal with the proximate causation limitation for damages on a warranty claim and is not relevant to the question presented here.
times receive labels in contract analysis different from the "proximate causation" label most frequently employed in tort analysis, these principles nevertheless exist to restrict liability in contract as well. Indeed, the requirement of foreseeability may be more stringent in the context of contract liability than it is in the context of tort liability. See East River S. S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 U. S. 858, 874-875 (1986); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 351 and Comment a, pp. 135-136 (1979); 11 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1344, pp. 227-228 (3d ed. 1968); 5 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 1008, pp. 75-76 (1964); id., § 1019, at 113-116; cf. 3 E. Farnsworth, Contracts § 12.14, pp. 241-243 (1990) (Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854), "impose[s] a more severe limitation on the recovery of damages for breach of contract than that applicable to actions in tort or for breach of warranty, in which substantial or proximate cause is the test"). The finding that Captain Coyne's extraordinary negligence was the sole proximate cause of Exxon's injury suffices to cut off respondents' liability for that injury on a contractual breach of warranty theory as well.
factfinder, subject to limited review. See, e. g., Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469, 473-476 (1877); Keeton 320-321; 5 Corbin, supra, § 998, at 22-23. "A court of law, such as this Court is, rather than a court for correction of errors in fact finding, cannot undertake to review concurrent findings of fact by two courts below in the absence of a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U. S. 271, 275 (1949); see also Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U. S. 656, 665 (1987); Reliable Transfer, 421 U. S., at 401, n. 2. Although Exxon identifies some tension in the various findings made by the courts below,3 we nevertheless conclude that Exxon has not made an "obvious and exceptional showing of error" that would justify our reversal of the courts' ultimate conclusion, reached after a 3-week trial and review of a lengthy and complex record. Without necessarily ratifying the application of proximate causation principles by the courts below to the particular facts here, we decline to reconsider their conclusion.
3 Exxon argues that the courts' findings-that by 1803, the Nene had gained control of the end of the hose so that it was no longer a threat to the Houston, and that by 1830, the Houston had successfully avoided the peril resulting from alleged breaches of duty on respondents' part, had "reached a safe position," and was "heading out to sea and in no further danger of stranding" -are inconsistent with the apparently uncontested finding that the hose, which was suspended from the ship's crane during efforts to disconnect the hose from the ship, caused the crane to topple at 1944, injuring a crewman. We note in this regard that the District Court expressly found that the captain's failure to plot fixes after 1830 "was entirely independent of the fact of breakout" and that "he voluntarily decided not to plot fixes in a situation where he was able to plot fixes," App. to Pet. for Cert. 64; the Court of Appeals also relied upon the fact that Captain Coyne himself had explained that he did not plot fixes "because he felt it was unnecessary to do so," 54 F.3d 570, 578 (CA9 1995).
upon which we granted certiorari. See Pet. for Cert. i. To the extent that Exxon argues that the issue involved herewhether one cause of injury is a superseding cause-can never be bifurcated from other issues, we reject that contention. Again, Exxon relies upon Reliable Transfer in asserting that the fault of all parties must be considered together in order that they may be compared. As explained above, that argument is wrong: A party whose fault did not proximately cause the injury is not liable at all. To the extent that Exxon argues that the District Court abused its discretion in dividing the trial in the particular way that it did here, we decline to address that argument.


§ 351-1 Declaration of public policy and purposes.
§ 351-3 Demolition permit required.
§ 351-4 Demolition permit application process.
§ 351-5 Performance of ordinary maintenance.
§ 351-7 Violations and penalties; remedies.
§ 351-8 Addition of historic structures to Township list.
Blighted Property Review Committee — See Ch. 15.
Planning Commission — See Ch. 76.
Shade Tree Commission — See Ch. 112.
Damaged buildings — See Ch. 187.
Dangerous buildings — See Ch. 191.
Certificate of zoning classification — See Ch. 228.
Contractors — See Ch. 244.
Grading and excavating — See Ch. 334.
Stormwater management — See Ch. 490.
Subdivision and land development — See Ch. 505.
It is hereby declared, as a matter of public policy, that the preservation and protection of buildings and structures of historic, architectural, cultural, educational and aesthetic merit are public necessities and are in the interests of the health, prosperity and welfare of all the citizens of Upper Chichester Township.
Encourage public participation in identifying and preserving historical, architectural and cultural resources through educational programs and general awareness campaigns.
The Upper Chichester Township Board of Commissioners.
The Upper Chichester Township Building Inspector.
The erection of a new building, structure or object upon a site.
The razing or destruction, whether entirely or in significant part, of a building or structure. Demolition includes the removal of a building or structure from its site.
Any structure listed in the Upper Chichester Township Historic Sites Survey as prepared by the Delaware County Planning Department dated June 1981-1982, as updated from time to time either by the Delaware County Planning Department or by the Township in accordance with the provisions of § 351-8 herein.
A person, corporation, or other legal entity that has filed written objections to the issuance of a demolition permit pursuant to this chapter.
An individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality or any other legal or commercial entity.
Upper Chichester Township, Delaware County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
No person shall undertake demolition on any historic structure within the Township unless a demolition permit is first obtained from the Building Inspector.
Except as may be provided below, the Building Inspector shall not issue a demolition permit until the Board first reviews and approves the application for the demolition permit.
To obtain a demolition permit, an applicant must submit an application in writing on a form furnished by the Building Inspector for that purpose, together with the applicable fee(s). The fee for a demolition permit shall be based on the Township fee schedule. The minimum charge for the permit will be $150.
Projected uses of the site following demolition of the building or structure.
The applicant must submit three copies of said application to the Secretary of Upper Chichester Township.
The demolition permit application shall be signed by the applicant and such signature shall constitute a certification by the signer that the information contained in the application is true and correct.
That unless written objection stating specific reasons thereof is filed with the Building Inspector within 10 days of the publication of the notice the demolition permit will be issued after the expiration of such ten-day period.
If within 10 days after publication of the notice no written objection to the issuance of the permit is filed with the Building Inspector, then the demolition permit shall be issued to the applicant.
If within 10 days after application of the notice an objection is filed with the Building Inspector, then the Building Inspector shall forward the demolition permit application together with all attachments to the Board for its review. The objection shall be in writing and shall state the specific reasons for the objection.
Within 45 days after receipt by the Board of an application for a demolition permit to which application an objection has been filed, or such later period not to exceed an additional 60 days as may be agreed to by the Board and the applicant, the Board shall hold a public meeting on the application and objections thereto and make a decision whether to approve or deny the application for issuance of the demolition permit. The person applying for the demolition permit shall be given a minimum of five days' advance written notice by mail of the time and place of the hearing. If a special hearing, being a hearing other than a regularly scheduled Board meeting, is required to meet the time frame for the public hearing required herein or is otherwise requested by the applicant, the applicant shall be responsible for payment of the required fee for such special hearing as provided for in the Township fee schedule. Failure of the Board to make a determination within the required time period shall be deemed to constitute an approval of the application.
At any time after filing an objection to the issuance of the permit, the objecting party may withdraw the objection by giving written notice of such withdrawal to the Board and the Building Inspector and, upon receipt of such withdrawal, provided the initial ten-day period after publication has expired and provided there are not other objections which remain outstanding, the permit shall be issued and any pending public hearing on the permit shall be canceled.
At the public hearing held on the application, the Board, the objector, and the applicant may agree to postpone the public hearing to a later date, such postponement not to exceed an additional 60 days from the date of that public hearing.
The historical, architectural or aesthetic significance of the building or structure.
The design and compatibility of the proposed work with the character of its site, including the effect of the proposed work on neighboring structures.
Whether the building or structure can be used for any purpose for which it is or may be reasonably adapted. To that end, the owner must demonstrate that the sale of the property is impracticable, and that rental cannot provide a reasonable rate of return. The objector must also provide his/her or its recommendations for the continued use of the building in question.
Where an application for demolition is based on economic hardship, the Board may lessen its requirements in order to account for the economic situation involved.
Every decision of the Board shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the decision. The decision shall contain the findings of fact that constitute the basis for the decision. The Board shall furnish the applicant and objector with a copy of the Board's decision, together with a copy of any recommendations the Board may have for changes necessary before the application will be reconsidered by the Board.
The Board may approve the application for a demolition permit subject to conditions.
In cases where the Board approves of a demolition permit, the Board shall require that the building or structure be recorded, at the applicant's expense, according to the documentation standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey and the Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER), with such written, drafted and photographic documentation being deposited with the Board and any other historical preservation agency or group by the Board deems necessary. In no case will the applicant be forced to spend more than an additional $200 on this survey. Any additional expenses will be borne by the objecting party.
In the case of a demonstrated economic hardship, the Board may prescribe a less stringent form of documentation.
In cases where the Board approves the issuance of a demolition permit, the permit will be good for a six-month period, unless upon written request the Board agrees to extend the time.
This article shall not be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any building or structure, where such work does not require a permit by law, and where the purpose and effect of such work is to correct any deterioration or decay of, or damage to, a building or structure and to restore the same to its condition prior to the occurrence of such deterioration, decay or damage.
Any party to the hearing before the Board aggrieved by a decision of the Board may, within 30 days after receiving notice of the decision, seek judicial review of that decision in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Penalties. Failure to perform any action required by this chapter or performance of any action, which is prohibited by this chapter, shall constitute a violation hereof. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a fine of not more than $600 for each offense plus court costs, including reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result thereof, and, in default of payment of such fine and costs, shall be subject to imprisonment for a term not to exceed 30 days. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. All fines collected shall be deposited into the Township general fund. At the discretion of the Board, these funds may be used for historic preservation to further the achievement of the purposes described in § 351-1.
Listed in or determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as provided in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.
Listed in the Upper Chichester Township Historic Sites Survey prepared by the Delaware County Planning Department dated June 1981-1982, as updated from time to time.
Has significant character, interest, or value as an example of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the Township, the county, the commonwealth, or the United States.
Is the site of a significant historic event.
Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social or historical heritage of the community.
Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen.
Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or engineer whose individual work has significantly influenced the development of the Township, the county, the commonwealth or the United States.
Contains elements of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship, which represent a significant innovation.
Is the singular example of a design or use of material or style of architecture within the Township.
Is part of the historic context of a square, park or other distinctive area which should be preserved according to a plan based on a historic, cultural or an architectural context.
Is a landmark; that is, an established and familiar visual feature which assists in defining the character of the neighborhood, community, or Township due to is unique location or singular physical characteristic.
Has yielded or is likely to yield information of importance to the history of the Township, the county, or the commonwealth.