Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
Decision Date | 02 February 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 190.,190. |
Parties | GRAY et al. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. (ROBISON et al., Third-Party Defendants). |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Chandler & Chandler and H. M. Holder, all of Shreveport, La., for plaintiffs.
Dimick & Hamilton, of Shreveport, La., for defendant and third-party plaintiff.
Hollingsworth B. Barret, of Shreveport, La., for third-party defendants.
On September 10, 1938, an automobile being driven and owned by Mr. J. A. Robison, with whom were riding Mrs. J. A. Robison and Mrs. Octa Whitfield Gray, collided with a truck of the Rothschild Boiler Works, being driven by one of its employees, with whom no one was riding. Mr. J. A. Robison carried public liability insurance with the Aetna Insurance Company and the Rothschild Boiler Works carried protection with the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company.
Suit was filed by Mrs. Robison and Mrs. Gray against the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company in the First District Court of Louisiana. The Hartford Company removed the case to the Federal court — diversity of citizenship. Then the Hartford Company filed a third-party complaint, under Rule 14, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, alleging that "the accident was caused solely by the negligence of J. A. Robison, who was the owner and operator of the car in which plaintiffs were riding, and who negligently drove the said motor vehicle into the automobile truck of B. A. Rothschild, defendant's insured."; also, alleging further "In the alternative, if the said accident was not caused solely by the negligence of J. A. Robison, the negligence of the said J. A. Robison was a proximate cause of the said accident and he was and is a joint tort feasor."; and finally alleging further "The said plaintiffs have a like claim against the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company under the terms of its policy issued to Robison and by virtue of the laws of the State of Louisiana, and particularly Act 253 of 1918 and Act 55 of 1930, which accord to an injured person a right of action against a liability insurer."; and, consequently, praying to have Mr. Robison and the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company made third-party defendants.
Then, Mrs. Robison and Mrs. Gray, original plaintiffs, jointly moved for an order revoking and rescinding the previous order of the court bringing third-party defendants into the action because (1) there is no authority for such a procedure, (2) if there be authority for such procedure, defendant is not entitled to employ it, for the reason that under the law of Louisiana, there is no right of contribution among joint tort-feasors, and (3) an allowance of such a pleading retards unduly the main action of plaintiffs.
There was a hearing, oral arguments were had and were followed by briefs.
The dominant portion of Rule 14 is as follows:
We quote the remaining portion of the rule to show its dragnet provisions, clearly indicative of the purpose of the writers of the rule to encompass any and all diversified ramifications growing out of or connected with any cause of action:
The italicized part of the first quoted portion of the rule: "who is or may be liable to him or to the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him" gives no difficulty as to its meaning. It is quite obvious that the original defendant, Hartford Company, may convert itself into what the rule denominates the third-party plaintiff and by motion, authorized by the court, even though ex parte, make the two new parties, Mr. J. A. Robison and the Aetna Insurance Company, what the rule designates as third-party defendants. We must remember that the allegation of the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company in its third-party complaint motion is to the effect that these two new parties brought into the suit are "liable to * * * the plaintiff for all * * * of the plaintiff's claim against him." We, therefore, overrule the motion on its first contention that there is "no authority for such a procedure."
The court, however, must go further and consider the very learned point made by Mrs. Robison and Mrs. Gray in their motion to revoke the order of the court. The argument is that Rule 14 is essentially procedural in character and it should not be used, as is sought in the instant case, under the guise of procedural relief to change the substantive law of the state of Louisiana. The substantive law asserted is that there is no right of contribution among joint tort-feasors in Louisiana, citing Quatray v. Wicker, 1933, 178 La. 289, 151 So. 208, 210. We take exception unqualifiedly; the substantive law is just to the contrary; and the case, we believe, holds with our view.
In the instant case, the result to be declared under Rule 14, if the third-party defendants prove upon trial to be joint tort-feasors with the defendant, will be to condemn them in the judgment with the defendant, in solido.
We subscribe to the following quotation taken from mover's brief and being from the Quatray case, to-wit: * * *"(Italics supplied by this court)
After reading the italicized passage above, it is clear that Sincer v. Heirs of Bell, 47 La.Ann. 1548, 18 So. 755, is not a case for mover. The sentence following the above quotation sustains this view (Quatray v. Wicker, 178 La. 289, 151 So. at page 210): "* * * Whether the doctrine of Sincer v. Bell can be reconciled with the rule in Louisiana that the liability of joint tort-feasors for damages is a solidary liability is a matter which does not concern us in the present case."
The main syllabus of the Sincer v. Bell case is a correct exposition of its legal content. We quote it here, making our own italicization of the part which, we think, weakens its legal meaning (47 La. Ann. 1548, 18 So. 755):
Moreover, and finally, the following language from the Quatray case qualifies definitely the holding of Sincer v. Bell, (178 La. 289, 151 So. at page 211):
Here is what the Quatray case really says (178 La. 289, 151 So. at page 211):
We make a literal translation of the concluding paragraph from Pothier, Traité des obligations I (nouvelle éd. 1821), Part II, Chapter III, § VI, "Of the actions which the solidary debtor who has paid without subrogation may have for himself against his co-debtors" — No. 282 at p. 272: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shannon v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
...following section 723c, as we have fully and definitely shown, to the best of our limited capacity, in the cases of Gray v. Hartford Indemnity Co., D.C., 31 F. Supp. 299; Id., D.C., 32 F.Supp. 335; Id., D.C., 36 F.Supp. 780. The three opinions should be read in order to show the practical o......
-
Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corporation
...Md., 27 F.Supp. 413. Contra are Morrell v. United Air Lines Transport Corp., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 29 F.Supp. 757; Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., D. C.W.D.La., 31 F.Supp. 299; Id., D.C.W. D.La., 32 F.Supp. 335; and, as to Rule 13, United States, for Use and Benefit of Jones Contracting ......
-
United States v. Acord
...Sussan v. Strasser, D.C.Pa., 36 F.Supp. 266, 268; Barkeij v. Don Lee, Inc., D.C.Cal., 34 F. Supp. 874, 876; Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., D.C.La., 31 F. Supp. 299, 304; Schram v. Roney, D.C. Mich., 30 F.Supp. 458, 462; Morrell v. United Air Lines Transport Corp., D.C. N.Y., 29 ......
-
Pan American Fire & Casualty Company v. Revere, Civ. A. No. 9952.
...D.C.D.Mont., 46 F.2d 565. 31 Holcomb v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 10 Cir., 228 F.2d 75, 82. 32 See Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., D.C.W.D.La., 31 F.Supp. 299, 301; Id., D.C., 36 F.Supp. 33 See LSA-C.C., Arts. 2097, 2324, 3536, 3552. 34 See Klaber v. Maryland Casualty Company......