is then applied to all charters lost during the detention. Id.
When a vessel negligently strikes a shore structure or other
fixed object, detention damage is also recoverable. See e.g.,
Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Willamette-Western Corp.,
519 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1975). How detention damage is calculated in such
a situation, however, varies. Compare Continental Oil Co. v.
S.S. Electra, 431 F.2d 391 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied,
401 U.S. 937, 91 S.Ct. 925, 27 L.Ed.2d 216 (1971) (allowing oil
company to recover for lost profits on 130 days worth of
production) with Bolivar County Gravel Co. v. Thomas Marine
Co., 585 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir. 1978) (not allowing dredge company
to recover for lost profits on 10 days worth of lost production).
Defendants contend Plaintiff can only recover lost profits for
the time in which the bridge was out of use. In other words,
Defendants argue that the bridge should be treated the same as if
it were a vessel. Conversely, Plaintiff argues that equity
demands that it be allowed to recover all lost profits
proximately caused by the collision.
As previously noted, the underlying principle to be considered
is restitutio in integrum. Thus, in admiralty, "property owners
are to be compensated fully for all losses incurred, in a manner
which will restore them to the condition which would have existed
had the casualty not occurred." Complaint of Valley Towing
Service, 629 F. Supp. 139, 145 (E.D.Mo. 1985); See Sutton River
Services, Inc. v. Inland Tugs Co., 1985 A.M.C. 858, 1984 WL 1462
(S.D.ILL 1984) (noting that a plaintiff can recover for all lost
profits resulting from the negligence of the defendant).
Therefore, if liability is established, Plaintiff is entitled to
be "made whole."
In this case, being "made whole" would include recovery for all
lost profits sustained as a result of the damage to the bridge.
For example, if Plaintiff lost contracts as a result of the
bridge being out of commission, said losses might extend for a
period beyond the two months the bridge was being repaired. On
the other hand, Plaintiff is only entitled to any lost profits
directly resulting from the bridge being out of commission.
Such a calculation would be consistent with how detention
damages are figured in cases involving vessels. In a case where a
vessel is damaged, after the damaged vessel is repaired, its
owner can get new charters and sustains no further damage.
Additionally, the three voyage rule accounts for market
conditions after the repair period. Thus, in cases involving
vessels, a full measure of lost profit is recoverable.*fn2
The same is also true when an oil facility is negligently
damaged by a ship. After the facility is back into operation,
there are no more damages because production can resume at
previous levels. See Continental Oil Co. v. S.S. Electra,
431 F.2d 391 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 937, 91 S.Ct.
925, 27 L.Ed.2d 216 (1971). In such cases, the owners are getting
full compensation for the profits lost due to the collision.
In this case, the railroad may or may not have been able to go
back into full operation following the bridge repair. If full
operation was not possible, Plaintiff's lost profits may extend
beyond the two month period. However, any such losses would have
to be caused by the bridge being out of commission.
In any case, Plaintiff will be required to prove lost profits
with proof "sufficient to bring the issue outside the realm of
conjecture, speculation or opinion unfounded on definite facts."
Complaint of Valley Towing Service, 629 F. Supp. 139, 146
Ergo, Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is