Saratoga Fishing Co. v. Marco Seattle Inc.

Opinion by Judge BEEZER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge NOONAN.

ORDER

The opinion filed August 4, 1995, appearing at 63 F.3d 792 (1995), is hereby withdrawn.

*1435 OPINION

This products liability action in admiralty arose following an engine room fire that caused the flooding and sinking of the fishing vessel M/V SARATOGA. The district court concluded that J.M. Martinae & Company (“Martinac”), the shipbuilder, and Marco Seattle, Inc. (“Marco”), the designer of the vessel’s hydraulic system, were strictly liable to Saratoga Fishing Company (“Saratoga Fishing”), the vessel owner, for damages to “other property” on the vessel because the fire and subsequent loss resulted from a defectively designed hydraulic system. The district court reduced the damages award by two-thirds, however, because of Saratoga Fishing’s comparative fault in maintaining and operating that system. Both sides appeal the district court’s determinations on liability and damages.

We have jurisdiction over these timely appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because we agree with all but one facet of the district court’s resolution of this action, we affirm in part, reverse in part and…

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the opinion of the court, except as to its exclusion of damages for the skiff, seine net, fuel, spare parts and other miscellaneous equipment sold by Madruga to Sara-toga Fishing as part of the sale of the MW SARATOGA. None of this property was manufactured or sold by Martinac. Under East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 864 , 106 S.Ct. 2295, 2298-99 , 90 L.Ed.2d 865 all of it was “other property,” damages for which are recoverable in tort. The court abandons East River and puts this circuit in conflict with another major maritime circuit, Nicor Supply Ships Assoc. v. General Motors, 876 F.2d 501 , 505-06 (5th Cir.1989). The opinion also repudiates controlling authority in this circuit, Pan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Construction & Design Co., 565 F.2d 1129 (9th Cir.1977). That case accepted “as the law of products liability in this circuit, at least for this case arising in admiralty,” the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A. Id. at 1135. Under the Restatement, the original seller of a product in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous that has entered the stream of commerce is strictly…