In re Silver Bridge Disaster, 39.
Decision Date | 20 April 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 39.,39. |
Citation | 311 F. Supp. 1345 |
Parties | In re Multidistrict Litigation Arising From the SILVER BRIDGE DISASTER. |
Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
Before ALFRED P. MURRAH, Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON,* WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, and STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel.
On December 15, 1967, at the height of the evening rush hour, the Silver Bridge spanning the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West Virginia collapsed. As a result, thirty-one cars fell into the river and forty-six persons were killed. The forty-eight actions listed on Schedule A result from this tragedy. The bridge was allegedly fabricated by the American Bridge Division of the United States Steel Corporation. The J. E. Greiner Company allegedly participated in the design of the bridge as consulting engineers. They are both defendants1 in nearly all of the actions. The United States and the State of Ohio2 are defendants in certain of the actions pending in the Southern District of Ohio.
It is manifest that this multidistrict litigation involves substantial common questions of fact relating to liability and in this regard it is not unlike the typical air disaster litigation which frequently comes before the Panel. See In re Mid-Air Collision Fairland, Indiana, 309 F. Supp. 621 (JPML February 10, 1970) and cases cited therein. The dispute is therefore not whether these actions should be transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to § 1407 but rather to which district they should be transferred.
The choice is not altogether an easy one for the parties and witnesses reside on both sides of the Ohio River. Since a clear majority of the actions are now pending in the Southern District of West Virginia and most parties prefer transfer of the related actions to that district we have concluded that the Southern District of West Virginia would be the most convenient district.
At the hearing on the order to show cause, several attorneys expressed concern about the heavy dockets in both districts and we would be most reluctant to add to the burden of either Judge Christie or Judge Kinneary by giving either the added responsibility for conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in this rather large multidistrict litigation. With the typically fine cooperation of all involved we have arranged for the assignment of Judge Frank A. Kaufman of the District of Maryland to the Southern District of West Virginia for the purpose of conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
At the hearing there was also some mention of the possible transfer of some of these actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). As in multidistrict air disaster litigation, transfer under § 1404(a) is often desirable but the transfer of these actions for pretrial proceedings under § 1407 does not preclude later consideration by the appropriate court of transfer under § 1404(a). In re Hendersonville, North Carolina Air Disaster Litigation, 297 F.Supp. 1039 (JPML 1969) and In re Falls City, Nebraska Air Disaster Litigation, 298 F.Supp. 1323 (JPML 1969). See also In re Grain Shipment Litigation, 300 F.Supp. 1402 (JPML 1969).
It is therefore ordered that the actions listed on Schedule A pending in the Southern District of Ohio and the District of Maryland be and the same are hereby transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the related actions already pending in that district and with the written consent of that court filed herein, all such actions are hereby assigned to the Honorable Frank A. Kaufman.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation
...the Fourth Circuit, designated the undersigned to sit in that district as the section 1407 transferee judge. In re Silver Bridge Disaster, 311 F.Supp. 1345 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1970). On November 16, 1973, all of the claims of the plaintiffs against United States Steel and the "Greiner" defend......
-
In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation
...302 F.Supp. 239, 242 (J.P.M.L.1969); see, In re Grain Shipment Litigation, 300 F.Supp. 1402 (J.P. M.L.); In re Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation, 311 F.Supp. 1345 (J.P.M.L.) 15 It may be that certain of the actions, particularly Leesona Corp. v. Duplan Corp., E.D.N.Y., Civil Action No. 70-C......
-
In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation, Docket No. 50.
...transfer under Section 1407 and to disagree only as to the choice of the transferee forum. See for example In re Silver Bridge Litigation, 311 F.Supp. 1345 (JPML, April 20, 1970), In re Air Pollution Litigation Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Equipment 311 F. Supp. 1349 (JPML, April 6, ......
-
In re Alsco-Harvard Fraud Litigation, 54.
...actions. See In re San Juan Puerto Rico Air Crash Disaster Litigation, 316 F.Supp. 981 (J.P.M.L. 1970); In re Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation, 311 F.Supp. 1345 (J.P.M.L. 1970); In re Seeburg-Commonwealth United Litigation, 312 F.Supp. 909 (J.P.M.L. 1970). Judge Charles R. Weiner of the Ea......