Gould v. General Mills, Inc., Civ. 74-215.
| Citation | 411 F. Supp. 1181 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 74-215.,Civ. 74-215. |
| Parties | Bruce H. GOULD, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. GREAT LAKES ASSOCIATES, INC., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Fenton Harrison, Harrison & Gruber, Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff.
Sheldon Hurwitz, Hurwitz, Siegel & Hurwitz, Buffalo, N. Y., for General Mills.
Herbert Lasky, New York City, for Great Lakes Associates, Inc.
Evan E. James, Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Schuller & James, Buffalo, N. Y., for defendants.
This is an action by plaintiff, Gould, a longshoreman, who was injured on June 18, 1973 while participating in unloading a cargo of wheat from a vessel with other fellow longshoremen, all employees of the stevedore, Great Lakes Associates, Inc. ("Great Lakes"), third-party defendant. The vessel was docked in the port of the City of Buffalo, N. Y., at the grain elevator owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff, General Mills, Inc. ("General Mills"), which owned and was the consignee of the cargo of wheat.
Gould sued General Mills, alleging that the latter had been negligent in furnishing to Great Lakes and its employees defective gear, machinery, equipment and appliances used by plaintiff and his fellow workers in the unloading process. More particularly, plaintiff charges that a certain bolt holding a chain clevis was defective and failed, thus permitting a shovel to fly about in uncontrolled fashion and to strike him, causing his injuries. Plaintiff further alleges that General Mills was guilty of a breach of its warranty of suitability for intended use of the gear and equipment, particularly of said bolt. General Mills denies all these allegations.
General Mills, in its third-party complaint, alleges that Great Lakes was negligent in failing to rig, inspect and install the equipment furnished by General Mills and failed to operate it properly, so that the bolt was broken, causing plaintiff's injuries. General Mills charges that Great Lakes warranted its competence and ability to perform the services of unloading the vessel in a safe and workmanlike manner, that all work connected with the unloading was under the sole direction and control of Great Lakes, that Great Lakes failed to furnish plaintiff with a safe place to work, and that all these faults, in addition to being acts of negligence, constituted a breach of Great Lakes's warranty of competence, ability and workmanlike service.
General Mills also contends that, while it denies its own complicity and fault in the injury to Gould, it may nevertheless be held liable to him by reason of "certain warranties, non-delegable duties and rules peculiar to Maritime Laws".
Finally, General Mills contends that, in any event, if plaintiff was not injured through his own negligence, he was injured through the active and primary negligence of Great Lakes. For all of the above reasons, claims General Mills, it is entitled to indemnification from Great Lakes as against all costs and expenses, judgment, damages, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred or to be incurred.
Third-party defendant, Great Lakes, denies all these allegations and, furthermore, alleges that at the time of the accident it was fully insured for its liabilities to plaintiff under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950, that its insurance carrier has been paying to and will continue to pay to Gould all the benefits to which he is entitled under the Act, and that, by Section 905 of the Act, its liability for compensation payments under the Act is "* * * exclusive and in place of all other liability * * to the employee * * * and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from it at law or in admiralty on account of such injury * * *" 33 U.S.C. § 905(a).
Great Lakes moved for a summary judgment to dismiss the third-party action against it. The motion is based on the above-mentioned exclusivity provision of the Act. Great Lakes's sole contention is that section 905 of the Act "immunizes it from General Mills's suit for indemnity or contribution and mandates dismissal" of the third-party complaint. Green affidavit (sworn to January 10, 1975). Such position is the essence of Great Lakes's "second, separate and complete affirmative defense" as set forth in its answer which is sworn to have been served December 6, 1974 and which was filed January 13, 1975. The answer and the affidavit state that movant was, at the time of the happening described in the complaint, insured under the Act for its liabilities to plaintiff. Although the affidavit is made by one of movant's attorneys and not by one who is able to speak of his own first-hand knowledge (Rule 56(e) of Fed.R.Civ.Pr.) and although the answer has not been signed by Great Lakes's attorney as is required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is assumed for purposes of the disposition of this motion that Great Lakes was so insured and was in compliance with section 904 of the Act. (Why this need to assume has not been obviated by the furnishing of a certificate of compliance see § 937 is not shown.) That section says that "every employer" in maritime employment (§ 902(4)) shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable for medical services and supplies (§ 907), disability (§ 908) and death (§ 909). An employer who fails to secure such is guilty of a misdemeanor (§ 938) and may be sued at law or in admiralty (§ 905(a)) and its president, secretary and treasurer may be liable for the unsecured benefits (§ 938).
It is noted particularly that there is not any allegation or assertion, nor any attempt to demonstrate, that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact". Rule 56(c) of Fed.R.Civ.Pr. Great Lakes only claims that section 905 of the Act is its absolute and total shield.
The Act was originally enacted in 1927 and Section 905 was amended in 1972 by renumbering it as subsection 905(a) and without significant change. At the same time Congress added a new and supplementary subsection 905(b)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.
...402 (E.D.La.1974) (denying recovery), with the decision in the instant case, 434 F.Supp. 567 (S.D.N.Y.1977); Gould v. General Mills, Inc., 411 F.Supp. 1181 (W.D.N.Y.1976); Cargill v. United States, 1977 A.M.C. (E.D.Va.1976); Crutchfield v. Atlas Offshore Boat Service, Inc., 403 F.Supp. 920 ......
-
Triguero v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
...an agreement ... to indemnify" the manufacturer. 579 F.2d at 723. To distinguish its situation, Conrail cites Gould v. General Mills, Inc., 411 F.Supp. 1181 (W.D.N.Y.1976). That case, decided without the benefit of our decision in Zapico, is distinguishable. The record here does not reflect......
-
Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. City of Mount Vernon, EV 78-133-C.
...441 F.Supp. 798 (S.D.N.Y.1977); Crutchfield v. Atlas Offshore Boat Serv., Inc., 403 F.Supp. 920 (D.C.La.1975); Gould v. General Mills, Inc., 411 F.Supp. 1181 (W.D.N. Y.1976). The LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) provides in pertinent (b) In the event of injury to a person covered under this Act ca......
-
IT Corp. v. Superior Court
...of subdivision (b) of section 905 irrespective of the circuity of litigation that may result. (See, e. g., Gould v. General Mills, Inc. (W.D.N.Y.1976) 411 F.Supp. 1181; Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co. (S.D.N.Y.1977) 434 F.Supp. 567; Cargill v. U.S.A. (E.D.Va.1976) 1977 A.M.C. 50.) Those cases re......