Christie v. Powder Power Tool Corporation, Civ. No. 2155.
| Citation | 124 F. Supp. 693 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2155. |
| Parties | James H. CHRISTIE, Plaintiff, v. POWDER POWER TOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. MOUNCE AND CECIL et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Bernard J. Gallagher, and J. Roy Thompson, Jr., Washington, D. C., for Mounce and Cecil, t/a as Mounce and Cecil.
Stanley M. Dietz, Washington, D. C., for Leonard Cecil and for Cecil Fastening Equipment, Inc.
Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Oliver Gasch, Frank H. Strickler, and Joseph M. F. Ryan, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., for third-party defendants.
James Christie came to his death on May 13, 1952, at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. He was a civilian employee of the United States. His death occurred when he was struck and mortally wounded by a metal pin which was discharged from a tool used to fasten the top and bottom layers of a metal airplane landing mat.
The Powder Power Tool Corporation manufactured the tool, which was being demonstrated by Andrew M. Mounce and Leonard Cecil, doing business as Mounce and Cecil.
Plaintiff, administrator of the estate of James Christie, has sued, among others, Powder Power Tool Corporation, Mounce and Cecil, and Cecil individually, claiming that defendants, knowing the tool was dangerous, negligently and wilfully operated it without proper safety devices.
Defendants Mounce and Cecil, and Cecil individually, on motion, were granted leave to file third-party complaints against the United States. These complaints were filed, and the United States has moved to dismiss the same, or in the alternative for a summary judgment in respect of Mounce and Cecil. The last-mentioned motion is before me for consideration.
The third-party complaints are expressly brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, and seek contribution and indemnity from the United States. The fact that they are not seeking indemnity under contract is furthermore made abundantly clear by the language in their brief in which they state that the indemnity sought "is not contractual indemnity but is indemnity for tort — for a breach of an independent right owed to the third-party plaintiffs by the United States."
It appears from the exhibits attached to the motion that plaintiff in this case has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newport Air Park, Inc. v. United States
...negligence of the United States and such persons. Such a construction has been accepted by some courts. E. g., Christie v. Powder Power Tool Corp., 124 F.Supp. 693 (D.D.C. 1954); Rhoades v. United States, 216 F. Supp. 732 (S.D.Cal.1962). Nevertheless, the emphasized statutory language is su......
-
United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener
...or in the absence of the indemnitor's liability to the injured party, there can be no recovery for indemnity. Christie v. Powder Power Tool Corp., 124 F.Supp. 693 (D.D.C. 1954); Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis v. United States, 182 F.2d 149 (8th Cir. 1950), cert. den. 340 U.S. 825, 71 S.Ct. ......
-
Busey v. Washington
...there is a legal impediment, which I shall now discuss. In 1954 I had the same question before me in the case of Christie v. Powder Power Tool Corporation, D.C., 124 F.Supp. 693. There, as here, plaintiff was a civilian employee of the United States, and there, as here, had received benefit......
-
United States v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Company
...the United States when the joint tortfeasor is sued by the administrator of a deceased United States employee (Christie v. Powder Power Tool Corp., D.C.D.C. 1954, 124 F.Supp. 693). Appellee contends, however, that this case cannot control here, for it does not deal with the admiralty rule r......