Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission
| Decision Date | 12 July 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. S 57 C 1.,S 57 C 1. |
| Citation | 153 F. Supp. 512 |
| Parties | Naomi PETTY, Administratrix of the Estate of Faye R. Petty, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE-MISSOURI BRIDGE COMMISSION, a corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Douglas MacLeod, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
James M. Reeves, of Ward & Reeves, Caruthersville, Mo., for defendant.
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis that the defendant is an immediate agency and arm of the sovereign states of Tennessee and Missouri and of the Federal government, and is immune from tort actions.
Similar motions to dismiss are often treated as a motion for summary judgment. Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated v. Borax Consolidated, 9 Cir., 185 F.2d 196.
The facts with respect to the motion are undisputed and so will not be discussed by the court in detail. This is an action by an administratrix to recover for the wrongful death of the deceased under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688.
The deceased was a member of the crew of a ferry vessel which was owned and operated by the defendant. The vessel's operation included transporting automobiles across the Mississippi River to and from Tennessee and Missouri. Defendant is organized and existing under the laws of Tennessee and Missouri and under the authority of Congress. The deceased was a deck hand on the ferry vessel. As the ferry vessel was en route across the river a collision occurred with another vessel and defendant was trapped in the pilot house and drowned when the ferry vessel sank.
The law is well settled that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts or any other court without its consent and permission. The question of whether a particular suit is one against the sovereign is not to be determined solely by reference to the nominal parties to the suit, but is dependent on the nature and effect of the suit. Here the suit is one about which the subject matter is an interest of value of a material sense to both states. A judgment against the defendant would operate to affect directly the two sovereigns, and so to determine the matter here we must turn to the question of whether or not consent and permission were given for parties in tort action to sue the defendant. The compact creating the defendant commission in part reads as follows: "To contract, to sue and be sued in its own name; to purchase or otherwise acquire hold and dispose of real and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Interstate Wrecking Co. v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission
...the ground that the Commission was an agency of the States of Tennessee and Missouri and was therefore immune from tort actions. 153 F.Supp. 512 (E.D.Mo.1957). The Court of Appeals affirmed (254 F.2d 857 (8 Cir. 1958)) but this was reversed by the Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Doug......
-
Petty v. Bridge Commission
...the motion to dismiss, holding that respondent is an agency of the States of Tennessee and Missouri and immune from suit in tort. 153 F.Supp. 512. The Court of Appeals, agreeing with that view, affirmed. 254 F.2d 857. The case is here on certiorari. 358 U.S. 811, 79 S.Ct. 53, 3 L.Ed.2d The ......
-
Lauritzen v. Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District
...commerce between the States." The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Commission was immune from tort liability, 153 F.Supp. 512, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 8 Cir., 254 F.2d 857. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the individual states involved had waived ......
-
NM Paterson & Sons, Limited v. City of Chicago, 58 C 1860.
...when the state itself rather than the entity named as defendant will have to respond to a judgment (Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission, D.C.E.D.Mo.1957, 153 F.Supp. 512, 513; Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 1946, 327 U.S. 573, 66 S.Ct. 745, 90 L.Ed. 862; State Hig......