Hoiness v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 August 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 24322 S.,24322 S. |
| Citation | 75 F. Supp. 289 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | HOINESS v. UNITED STATES et al. |
Herbert Resner and Gladstein, Anderson, Resner, Sawyer & Edises, all of San Francisco, Cal., for libelant.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., for the United States.
John H. Black and Edw. R. Kay, both of San Francisco, Cal., for American South African Line, Inc.
This is a libel in personam primarily against the United States. The War Shipping Administration and American South African Line were treated as nominal parties only. In brief, libelant seeks to recover insurance benefits, damages, wages and maintenance. Each of these claims is stated in a separate cause of action.
In paraphrase the libelant alleges that he is a merchant seaman; that the SS Escanaba Victory was a vessel owned by the United States and the War Shipping Administration; that it was of United States registry and at all pertinent times was operated, managed, navigated and controlled by the American South African Line, Inc., as general agent; that the operating agent has a main office and principal place of business in San Francisco within the jurisdiction of this court; that the United States and the War Shipping Administration maintain offices and principal places of business in San Francisco and within the jurisdiction of the court; that this action is brought and maintained under the Second Seamen's War Risk Insurance Act, the Suits in Admiralty Act, the Jones Act and Public Law 17, 78th Congress, Act March 24, 1943; "that libelant was in the employ of the respondents and each of them aboard the said vessel for the period from August 10, 1944, when he joined the vessel at the port of Aberdeen, Washington, to and including January 15, 1945, when he separated from said vessel at the port of San Francisco * * * That on January 16, 1945 * * * while said vessel was docked at the port of San Francisco * * * and while libelant was on the main deck in the service of the vessel and in the employ of respondents and each of them," he was shot and seriously wounded by a member of the United States Navy who was also a member of the vessel's gun crew; that the vessel was covered by a war risk policy under which he was entitled to benefits; that his claim therefor had been filed with the proper authority and had been disallowed. Ultimate facts pleaded in the first cause of action were incorporated by reference in the other three. To the foregoing were added allegations that with full knowledge of the "violent" and "unruly" propensities of the individual who shot libelant, respondents failed to control or supervise or discipline that individual, which conduct constituted negligence by which the vessel was rendered unseaworthy; that the injuries suffered were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of respondents. Prayer was for $35,000 damages. The remaining causes added that libelant was entitled to maintenance and wages, respectively.
There were no exceptions to the libel, nor was there a motion to dismiss.
The answer of the United States and of American South African Line, Inc., denied libelant's right to benefits; denied his employment; denied negligence and affirmatively alleged that the injuries were solely and proximately caused by a member of the Navy over whom libelants had no control and by the wilful misconduct of libelant, or were the result of his own vices. Each answer contained the following "* * * respondent leaves all questions of jurisdiction to the Court."
The case was heard on the merits and submitted.
Examination of the libel reveals that allegations of facts essential to the Court's jurisdiction have been omitted. The Second Seaman's War Risk Insurance Act, Act April 11, 1942, c. 240, 56 Stat. 214, 215, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 1128-1128h, so far as pertinent (§ 1128d) provides: "In the event of disagreement as to a claim for losses or the amount thereof, on account of insurance under sections 1128-1128h * * * an action on the claim may be brought and maintained against the United States in the district court of the United States sitting in admiralty in the district in which claimant or his agent may reside, or in case the claimant has no residence in the United States, in a district court in which the Attorney General of the United States shall agree to accept service."
Further that "Said suits shall proceed and shall be heard and determined according to the provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act insofar as such provisions are not inapplicable and are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Untersinger v. United States
...case was heard on the merits, and after submission the trial judge sua sponte dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Hoiness v. United States, D.C.N.D.Cal., 75 F.Supp. 289. Plainly any defect in venue was waived by going to The appellant insists that the defect in venue, which the pre-trial......
-
Hoiness v. United States
...District Court raised the question of jurisdiction sua sponte and, being of opinion that jurisdiction was lacking dismissed the libel. 75 F.Supp. 289. Its opinion was dated August 5, 1946, and on the same day it entered an order reading as 'It is ordered: 'That the libel herein is dismissed......
-
Glicker v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission
... ... in violation of the "equal protection of the laws" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ... In addition to claiming improper motive in cancelling her ... ...
-
Hoiness v. United States, 11479.
...is obvious, therefore, that the libel is fatally defective. * * * It follows that the libel must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction." 75 F.Supp. 289. 2 The order of August 5, 1946, was as follows: "It is ordered: That the libel herein is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that respo......