Halliburton Company v. Norton Drilling Company

Decision Date30 January 1963
Docket NumberNo. 19043.,19043.
Citation313 F.2d 380
PartiesHALLIBURTON COMPANY and Continental Casualty Company, Appellants, v. NORTON DRILLING COMPANY and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Paul A. Gaudet, New Orleans, La., for appellants.

John V. Baus, New Orleans, La., for appellees.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and RIVES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing en banc is hereby denied. The petition is based principally on the basis that the judgment of this Court is in conflict with our prior judgment in Travelers Insurance Company v. Busy Electric Company, 5 Cir., 294 F.2d 139. We conclude that there is no conflict in the decisions, principally because in the Busy Electric Company case it was alleged by the third-party plaintiff, the defendant in the original suit, that the third-party defendant had executed a contract of indemnity to the third-party plaintiff. No such contract is alleged in the present suit. However, since the Court in its opinion in the Busy Electric Company case discussed the third-party complaint there in light of the Louisiana jurisprudence dealing with the right of contribution between two tort feasors, we must next look to see whether the facts alleged in this third-party complaint are such as to bring it within the ambit of our decision in the Busy Electric Company case that the complaint could not be dismissed on motion for summary judgment.

We find the Louisiana jurisprudence as to contribution between tort feasors expressed in Appalachian Corporation v. Brooklyn Cooperage Company, 151 La. 41, 91 So. 539, particularly at page 541. That is, that when a party is sued as a defendant and the basis of the action against him is that he is "only technically or constructively at fault, from failure or omission to perform some legal duty" he may seek indemnity against a party whose conduct amounts to active negligence. In describing the nature of the liability which it speaks of as technical or constructive fault, the opinion in Appalachian describes it as such conduct that the party could not "in law or morals be said to be a culpable participant in the act of negligence." This Court found that the original complaint in Busy Electric Company made a charge of liability against the Housing Authority of New Orleans of "technical or constructive" fault, the allegations actually being that the plaintiff was injured from the fall of an electric light pole because of HANO's "failing to maintain the aforesaid pole in safe condition, which maintenance was the responsibility of the said Housing Authority." In contrast to this "technical or constructive" fault charged against the original defendant in Busy Electric, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Glover v. Johns-Manville Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 5, 1981
    ......and Rubber Company, a Delaware Corporation; H. K. Porter . Company, Inc., ... 5 Accord Halliburton Company v. Norton Drilling Company, 302 F.2d 431 (5th Cir. ......
  • Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Vessel Thomas E. Cuffe, 74-93.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • June 15, 1977
    ...is Louisiana law settled on the question of when prescription on a contribution action commences. Compare Halliburton Co. v. Norton Drilling Co., 5th Cir. 1963, 313 F.2d 380, 381 (when the tortfeasor is cast), and Brenham v. Southern Pac. Co., W.D.La. 1971, 328 F.Supp. 119, 124 (upon paymen......
  • Ducre v. Executive Officers of Halter Marine, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 25, 1985
    ...law with those of Louisiana tort law. See, e.g., Halliburton Co. v. Norton Drilling Co., 302 F.2d 431, 437 (5th Cir.1962), adhered to, 313 F.2d 380 (1963). In denying a claim for indemnity under maritime tort because the would-be indemnitee was charged with active rather than passive fault,......
  • Delta Engineering Corporation v. Scott
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 15, 1963
    ...v. Busy Electric Co., 5 Cir., 1961, 294 F.2d 139; cf. Halliburton Co. v. Norton Drilling Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 302 F.2d 431, on rehearing, 313 F.2d 380. Neither by written request nor by timely exception to the Court's charge6 did Delta specifically request the submission of issues pinpointing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT