Dichmann, Wright & Pugh v. Weade

Decision Date13 May 1948
Docket NumberNo. 5696.,5696.
Citation168 F.2d 914
PartiesDICHMANN, WRIGHT & PUGH, Inc. v. WEADE et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Leon T. Seawell, of Norfolk, Va. (R. M. Hughes, Jr., of Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellant.

Walter E. Hoffman, of Norfolk, Va. (Breeden & Hoffman, of Norfolk, Va., Michael F. Keogh, of Washington, D. C., and Edw. L. Breeden, Jr., of Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellees.

H. G. Morison, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Frank Staley and Leavenworth Colby, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for the United States, as amicus curiae.

Before PARKER, SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

DOBIE, Circuit Judge.

In civil actions before a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia verdicts were returned and judgments entered in favor of the plaintiffs (appellees herein). Lillian Weade recovered judgment for $50,000; Frederick Weade (her husband) for $1,000, and Roberta Stinemeyer for $5,000. The defendant, Dichmann, Wright & Pugh (hereinafter called Dichmann) has appealed to us.

On August 4, 1945, Mrs. Weade and Mrs. Stinemeyer purchased tickets at Old Point, Virginia, and there embarked on the steamboat Meteor, bound for Washington. About 11 p. m. they retired in stateroom 116, Mrs. Weade occupying the lower berth and Mrs. Stinemeyer the upper berth. The weather was warm so the door of the stateroom was left ajar and the window looking out upon the boat deck was opened. About 3 o'clock in the morning, a negro named Jack Barnes, second cook on the Meteor, entered the stateroom through the window, raped Mrs. Weade and left the room by the window. Barnes was subsequently tried, convicted and executed.

The Meteor was owned by the United States and had been requisitioned through the War Shipping Administration. On January 9, 1943, the War Shipping Administration entered into a contract with Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, Incorporated, for the operation by Dichmann of vessels assigned to it. On July 30, 1945, by a supplemental agreement the Meteor was added to the list of vessels assigned to Dichmann.

This contract of January 9, 1943, was designated "Service Agreement for vessels of which the War Shipping Administration is owner or owner pro hac vice." We quote two of the most important articles of this contract:

"Article 1. The United States appoints the General Agent as its agent and not as an independent contractor, to manage and conduct the business of vessels assigned to it by the United States from time to time."

"Article 3A (d) The General Agent shall procure the Master of the vessels, operated hereunder, subject to the approval of the United States. The Master shall be an agent and employee of the United States, and shall have and exercise full control, responsibility and authority with respect to the navigation and management of the vessel. The General Agent shall procure and make available to the Master for engagement by him the officers and men required by him to fill the complement of the vessel. Such officers and men shall be procured by the General Agent through the usual channels and in accordance with the customary practices of commercial operators and upon the terms and conditions prevailing in the particular service or services in which the vessels are to be operated from time to time. The officers and members of the crew shall be subject only to the orders of the Master. All such persons shall be paid in the customary manner with funds provided by the United States hereunder."

The verdicts were rendered by the jury under a charge by the District Judge: "Under the law of this case, by virtue of the contract which I have referred to, the defendant, Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, is what is known as a common carrier, or engaged in business as a common carrier, perhaps is more correctly the case, and by virtue of having purchased tickets and boarded the Steamship Meteor for the purpose of being transported to Washington, the plaintiffs, Mrs. Weade and Mrs. Stinemeyer, became and throughout the voyage continued to be what are known as passengers."

The jury was further instructed that Dichmann (as a common carrier) owed to Mrs. Weade and Mrs. Stinemeyer (as passengers) the duty to "use the utmost or highest degree of practicable care and diligence under the circumstances existing."

Dichmann is liable to the plaintiffs here if, but only if, we can read "the contract so as to find the Agents to be owners pro hac vice in possession and control of the vessel." Mr. Justice Frankfurter, in Caldarola v. Eckert, 332 U.S. 155, 159, 67 S.Ct. 1569, 1571, 91 L.Ed. 1968.

In a letter to counsel, dated June 3, 1947, the District Judge stated:

"Upon consideration of the above cases I am of the opinion that the verdicts of the jury should not be set aside.

"While the case of Hust v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Incorporated, 328 U.S. 707, 66 S.Ct. 1218, 90 L.Ed. 1534, is not precisely in point, it is my view that it is controlling so far as the liability of the defendant is concerned."

In a subsequent letter, dated July 28, 1947, the District Judge wrote:

"I have also examined the opinion in the Caldarola case.

"It is my conclusion that the questions involved in the cases under consideration are not governed by the decision in the Caldarola case."

We think that the Caldarola case is decisive...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Gutierrez v. Pacific Tankers
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • 15 Diciembre 1948
    ...not the agents, are liable to persons situated as is plaintiff. Aird v. Weyerhauser S.S.Co., 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 606; Dichmann, Wright & Pugh v. Weade, 4 Cir., 168 F.2d 914; Gaynor v. Agwilines, Inc., 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 612; McAllister v. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., 2 Cir., 169 F.2d 4; McGowan v.......
  • Weade v. Dichmann, Wright Pugh
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1949
    ...and the trial judge denied the motion of the respondent for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, stating as his reason therefor (168 F.2d 914, 916): 'While the case of Hust v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 328 U.S. 707, 66 S.Ct. 1218, 90 L.Ed. 1534, is not precisely in point, it is my view ......
  • McGowan v. JH Winchester & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 24 Junio 1948
    ...further than that. Shilman v. United States, 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 649, certiorari denied 333 U.S. 837, 68 S.Ct. 608; Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, Inc. v. Weade, 4 Cir., 168 F.2d 914; Publicker Commercial Alcohol Co. v. Independent Towing Co., 3 Cir., 165 F. 2d 1002. Indeed, in Shilman v. United Sta......
  • Miller v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 22 Marzo 1955
    ...Court, see Penfield Co. of California v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 9 Cir., 143 F.2d 746, 154 A.L.R. 1027; Dichmann, Wright & Pugh v. Weade, 4 Cir., 168 F.2d 914, 916; 14 Am. Jur., Courts, Sec. 7 Appellee makes no contention that the judgment can be sustained on the ground that the l......
  • 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