Henderson v. Cargill, Inc., Civ. A. No. 15690.

• Decision Date: 01 October 1954
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 15690.
• Citation: 128 F. Supp. 119
• Parties: Robert N. HENDERSON v. CARGILL, Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

128 F. Supp. 119

Robert N. HENDERSON v. CARGILL, Inc.

Civ. A. No. 15690.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

October 1, 1954.

Richter, Lord & Farage, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

WELSH, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendant and the unseaworthy condition of defendant's vessel which was involved in the alleged accident.

In support of its motion to dismiss the action two reasons are assigned by the defendant: (1) The two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury cases in Pennsylvania bars the instant action, since the cause of action arose on August 13, 1950 and the action was commenced on August 17, 1953, and (2) Assuming arguendo said two-year statute of limitations does not apply the action is nevertheless barred by plaintiff's laches.

The reasons assigned are not persuasive and we accordingly deny defendant's motion.

1. The accident that caused plaintiff's injuries occurred on board a vessel in navigable waters. Thus, in this action, the jurisdictional basis of which is the diversity of citizenship of the parties, the Court has before it a maritime tort. In such circumstances it is our thought admiralty principles apply, Garrett v. Moore-McCormick Co., Inc., 317 U.S. 239, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239, and Apica v. Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Co., D.C., 74 F. Supp. 819, and therefore a determination of the timeliness of the action depends on the equitable doctrine of laches and not the two-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations, 12 P.S. § 34.

11. Whether or not laches is present depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In other words, the Court has the duty to examine the equities of the respective parties before it decides the issue of laches. In the present case, on the one hand, we have the presumption of prejudice to the defendant arising out of the fact that plaintiff brought the action more than two years after the cause of action arose. On the other hand, we have the following facts which constitute plaintiff's reasons for his delay in bringing suit and which he contends are sufficient to excuse said delay: On September 5, 1951, plaintiff, a railroad employee, brought suit against the party he believed primarily responsible for the alleged accident and resulting injuries, his employer, Reading...