Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint - 275 U.S. 303, 48 S. Ct. 134 (1927)

Rule:

While intentionally to bring about a breach of contract may give rise to a cause of action, as a general rule, at least, a tort to the person or property of one man does not make a tortfeasor liable to another merely because the injured person was under a contract with that other, unknown to the doer of the wrong. 

Facts:

The owners of a vessel, remaining in their possession while time-chartered to the respondents, docked her with the Robins Dry Dock & Repair Company (Dry Dock) under a provision of the charter for docking every six months and suspension of payment of hire by the respondents until she was again ready for service. Dry Dock injured the vessel by negligence, causing delay, repaired her, settled with the owners and received a release of all their claims. Dry Dock had no notice of the charter until the delay had begun. 

Issue:

Did Dry Dock’s negligence to owner's property make Dry Dock liable to respondents because owner was under contract with respondents, unknown to Dry Dock?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The United States Supreme Court held respondents could not sue under the contract between owner and Dry Dock because there was no evidence that the contract was made for respondents' direct benefit. The Court also held that Dry Dock’s negligence to owner's property did not make Dry Dock liable to respondents merely because owner was under contract with respondents, unknown to Dry Dock. Accordingly, judgment allowing respondents to recover from Dry Dock was reversed.