Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail)

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Citation758 F.2d 936
Docket NumberNo. 84-5310,No. 84-1204,No. 84-5293,Nos. 84-1086,No. 84-1203,84-1203,84-1204,84-5293,84-5310,s. 84-1086
Parties, 12 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 671, 12 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1405, Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,346 SCHWEITZER, Josephine, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION (CONRAIL) and the Reading Company. SEIBERT, Mildred, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Seibert, Paul D., Deceased, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION (CONRAIL) the Reading Company. WENTZEL, George A., Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION (CONRAIL) and the Reading Company. Elaine SCHWAMBACH, Executrix of the Estate of Woodrow W. Schwambach and Merlin Schwambach, Executor of that Estate, Appellants, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION (CONRAIL) and the Reading Company. FRANK, Marilyn L., as Executrix of the Estate of Russell C. Wennell, deceased, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION (CONRAIL) and the Reading Company. SCHOLL, Martin H., Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Ethel M. Scholl, deceased, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION (CONRAIL) and the Reading Company. FENSTERMACHER, Earl R., and Scholing, Carl, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, a corporation, and the Reading Company, a corporation v. ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY, Celotex Corporation, successor-in-interest to Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, Philip Carey Corporation, Briggs Manufacturing Company and/or Panacon Corporation, Certainteed Corporation, Durox Equipment Company, Garlock, Inc., Janos Industrial Insulation Corporation, John Crane- Houdaille, Inc., J.W. Roberts Ltd., Keene Corporation, Nicolet, Inc., Nosroc Corporation, successor-in-interest to G. & W.H. Corson, Inc. and Calcite Quarry Corporation, Studebaker-Worthington, Inc., Tannetics, Inc., Turner & Newall PLC, Turner Asbestos Fibers Ltd., Union Rubber, Inc. and Vellumoid Company, Third-Party Defendants, Eagle Picher Industries, Inc. and Flintkote Company. Appeal of FENSTERMACHER, Earl R., inAppeal of SCHOLING, Carl, inJosephine SCHWEITZER, Mildred Seibert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Paul D. Seibert, Deceased, George A. Wentzel, Elai
Decision Date29 March 1985

Joseph F. Rice, James H. Rion, Blatt & Fales, Barnwell, S.C., Frederick W. Nabhan, Nabhan & Nabhan, Allentown, Pa., Richard H. Middleton, Jr., Middleton & Anderson, Savannah, Ga., Paul Pratt, P.C., James Murray Lynn, Stack & Gallagher, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., Weiner, Ostrager, Fieldman & Zucker, c/o Bernard Chazen (argued), Englewood, N.J., Robert J.F. Brobyn, Brobyn & Forceno, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., J. Michael Farrell, Camden, N.J., Thomas Parks Shearer (argued), Pittsburgh, Pa., Arthur R. Miller (argued), Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., for appellants.

James D. Crawford (argued), Ralph G. Wellington, Margaret S. Woodruff, Bonnie R. MacDougal, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., Bruce B. Wilson, Donald A. Brinkworth, D. Scott Morgan, Margaret W. Wiener, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Philadelphia, Pa., for Conrail.

Howard H. Lewis (argued), Alfred W. Hesse, Jr., Jeffrey S. Adler, Timothy I. McCann, Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, Philadelphia, Pa., for Reading.

Stanley Weiss (argued), Alexander Cohen, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Newark, N.J., for CNJ, CJI, and Timpany.

John H. Lewis, Jr., William E. Zeiter, Richard F. McMenamin, William H. Clark, Jr., Annemiek N. Young, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., Robert J. Siverd, David A. Bernat, The Penn Central Corporation, Greenwich, Conn., for amicus, Penn Central.

Before SEITZ, GARTH, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SEITZ, Circuit Judge.

These appeals, in the various procedural postures set forth in Part I, infra, call upon us to interpret Sec. 77 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 ("section 77"), as amended, formerly codified at 11 U.S.C. Sec. 205 (repealed 1978). Among the questions presented is whether a plaintiff in an asbestos-related personal injury action who had no manifest injury prior to the consummation date of his employer's reorganization in bankruptcy had a dischargeable "claim" within the meaning of section 77.

I.

Former railroad workers, representatives and survivors brought tort actions against The Reading Company ("Reading") and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 51 et seq. (1982) ("F.E.L.A."). Subject matter jurisdiction existed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1982) and 45 U.S.C. Sec. 56 (1982).

Reading filed motions in each action to dismiss it as a party. These motions were opposed by plaintiffs and Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail"), co-defendant in each of these actions. The motions were granted, 36 B.R. 469, express determinations were made that there was no just reason for delay, and, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), final judgments were entered in favor of Reading in each action. Plaintiffs and Conrail filed timely notices of appeal. This court has jurisdiction to review the judgments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982).

In addition, tort actions were brought in federal court against Central Jersey Industries, Inc. ("CJI") by former employees of Central Railroad Company of New Jersey ("CNJ") and their spouses pursuant to F.E.L.A. One similar action was brought in a New Jersey state court. In response to these actions, CJI filed two separate petitions for relief in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. That court had presided over CNJ's reorganization under section 77. The district court had retained jurisdiction to consider such petitions in accordance with its equitable power "to secure or preserve the fruits and advantages of a judgment or decree entered therein." Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 239, 54 S.Ct. 695, 697, 78 L.Ed. 1230 (1934). In one petition, CJI sought a declaration that the state court action was barred. It also sought an injunction seeking: (1) to restrain plaintiffs from prosecuting that action against CNJ, CJI, and Robert D. Timpany and (2) to require plaintiffs to dismiss as to those defendants. The second petition requested similar relief with respect to the federal court actions and, in addition, sought to restrain other former employees from commencing actions.

Conrail sought intervention to oppose the petition seeking relief against the state court plaintiffs, and the district court permitted intervention. The court then granted both of CJI's petitions and entered judgments to that effect. Timely notices of appeal were filed and this court granted a motion to stay the district court's injunction insofar as it enjoined the commencement of new actions and insofar as it ordered that the existing actions in federal court be dismissed. Appellate jurisdiction exists to review these judgments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982). See Ex Parte Tiffany, 252 U.S. 32, 40 S.Ct. 239, 64 L.Ed. 443 (1920).

II.

Reading and CNJ operated railroads before they reorganized in bankruptcy and divested themselves of their rail assets. Reading filed its bankruptcy petition on November 23, 1971, and transferred all of its rail assets to Conrail on April 1, 1976. The consummation date of Reading's reorganization was December 31, 1980. CNJ filed its petition on March 12, 1967, transferred its rail assets on April 1, 1976, and the consummation date of its reorganization was September 14, 1979. Robert D. Timpany was the trustee of CNJ's assets during its reorganization. CJI is the company that resulted from that reorganization.

Subsequent to the consummation dates, a number of actions were brought against Reading, CNJ, CJI, and Timpany ("defendants"), alleging...

To continue reading

Request your trial
114 cases
  • Ball v. Joy Mfg. Co., Civ. A. No. 1:87-0268
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 8 November 1990
    ... ...         The leading case in this consolidated action, Ball, et al. v. Joy Manufacturing Company, Civil ... by the United States Supreme Court in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 ...         In Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail), 758 F.2d 936 (3d ... ...
  • In re Allergan Biocell Textured Breast Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 19 March 2021
    ... ... 537 F.Supp.3d 699 Strike/Dismiss Plaintiffs Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CAC") (ECF No. 118) and every ... not need detailed factual allegations." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 ... injury for an otherwise healthy plaintiff."); Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail) , 758 F.2d 936, 942 ... ...
  • Bernier v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 15 October 1986
    ... ... See Borel v. Fibreboard Prods. Corp., 493 F.2d 1076, 1089-1090 (5th Cir.1973) (Wisdom, J.) ... applicable principles of tort law." See Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 758 F.2d 936, 942 (3rd ... ...
  • Potter v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 15 November 1990
    ... ... 784; Ostertag v. Bethlehem etc. Corp". (1944) 65 Cal.App.2d 795, 806-807, 151 P.2d 647.) ...  \xC2" ... 604, 744 P.2d 705, 707; Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (3d Cir.) 758 F.2d 936, cert ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Medical Monitoring – 50-State Survey
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 12 June 2023
    ...costs, and ‘response costs’ are the only available costs to private parties” under CERCLA); Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 758 F.2d 936, 942 (3d Cir. 1985) (“subclinical injury . . . is insufficient to constitute the actual loss or damage to a plaintiff’s interest required to sustai......
6 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 10 TOXIC TORTS PROPERTY DAMAGE AND PERSONAL INJURY: EMERGING THEORIES AND RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources and Environmental Litigation (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...objective symptomatology. See Bubash v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 717 F. Supp. 297 (M.D. Pa. 1989); Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 758 F.2d 936, 942 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 864 (1985); Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 682 F.2d 12, 19-20 (1st Cir. 19......
  • Combatting fear of future injury and medical monitoring claims.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 61 No. 4, October 1994
    • 1 October 1994
    ...see Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Occupational Safety and Health Admin., 58 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1978); Schwertzer v. Consol. Rail Corp., 758 F.2d 936 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 864 (1985); Friedman v. F.E. Myers Co., 706 F.Supp. 376 (E.D. Pa. 1989); Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 755 F.S......
  • Trust(ee) and Abandonment Issues: a Proposal for New Action Regarding Abandonment of Environmentally Contaminated Property
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 32-2, June 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...1316 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that a CERCLA claim arises when response costs are incurred); Schweitzer v. Consol. Rail Corp. (Conrail), 758 F.2d 936 (3d Cir. 1985) (ruling that asbestos exposure does not give rise to cause of action until injury is discovered). But see Jensen v. Cal. Dep't ......
  • Increasing fear of future injury claims: where speculation carries the day.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 64 No. 4, October 1997
    • 1 October 1997
    ...820 P.2d 181 (Cal. 1991) (recovery for mental distress barred absent manifest physical injury). (4.) Schweitzer v. Consol. Rail Corp., 758 F.2d 936, 942 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied sub nom. Reading Co. v. Schweitzer, 474 U.S. 864 (5.) James C. Maroulis, Can HIV-Negative Plaintiffs Recover ......
  • 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