Lackowitz v. Socony Mobil Oil Company
| Decision Date | 10 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 27065. |
| Citation | 194 F. Supp. 146 |
| Parties | Joseph LACKOWITZ v. SOCONY MOBIL OIL COMPANY, Inc. v. PHILADELPHIA IRON WORKS, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Arthur G. Raynes, Richter, Lord & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Richard E. McDevitt, Arthur H. Moss, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc.
William T. Campbell, Swartz, Campbell & Henry, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Philadelphia Iron Works, Inc.
Plaintiff's diversity suit against Socony Mobil Oil Company, Inc. is based on personal injuries received by him while working at its Paulsboro, New Jersey, refinery, repairing a metal flare stack. This repair work was contracted to plaintiff's employer, Philadelphia Iron Works, Inc. (Iron Works), which was joined in the action in a third-party complaint filed by Socony on three grounds of indemnity: (1) Socony claims common law indemnity from Iron Works, alleging that the latter company's negligence caused the injuries to its employee; (2) Contractual indemnity is claimed by virtue of the written agreement wherein Iron Works promised to save Socony harmless from all claims for personal injuries resulting from the work of Iron Works or any sub-contractor; (3) Socony should be indemnified because Iron Works breached its warranty of work-manlike performance.
Initially, Iron Works moved to strike those paragraphs from the third-party complaint containing averments of negligence used to join it under the count of common law indemnity. This motion was later incorporated into a motion for summary judgment, reciting that the defendant's allegations relating to the indemnity agreement were not sufficient to state a cause of action against Iron Works. Iron Works has cited the controlling decisions in New Jersey, the place of the accident, which hold that an employer cannot be joined as third-party defendant for its negligence in an action by its employee for personal injuries. Farren v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 1954, 31 N.J.Super. 356, 106 A.2d 752, 754.1 We agree with Iron Works that New Jersey law governs this point, for we must look to the place of the accident to determine the rights of the parties. Builders Supply Co. v. McCabe, 1951, 366 Pa. 322, 77 A.2d 368, 24 A.L.R.2d 319; Roth v. Greyhound Corp., D.C.E.D.Pa.1957, 149 F.Supp. 454. Therefore, so much of the third-party complaint as claims common law indemnity will be dismissed.
With regard to Socony's cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tuffarella v. Erie R. Co.
...had not joined as a defendant in the action (Zotta v. Otis Elevator Co., 64 N.J.Super, 344, 165 A.2d 840; cf. Lackowitz v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., D.C., 194 F.Supp. 146). In Moretz v. General Electric Company, D.C., 170 F.Supp. 698, 704, mod. on other grounds, 4 Cir., 270 F.2d 780, the precis......
-
DiPietro v. City of Philadelphia
...policy, it seeks. Under Pennsylvania law, indemnity is disallowed if the indemnitee is actively negligent. Lackowitz v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 194 F.Supp. 146, 147-48 (E.D.Pa.1961); Quinones v. Upper Moreland Township, 187 F.Supp 260, 267 (E.D.Pa.1960), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 293......