Martin v. United States, Civ. A. No. 23471.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 23471. |
| Citation | 162 F. Supp. 441 |
| Parties | Rosebud H. MARTIN and E. L. Martin, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff (City of Philadelphia, Third-Party Defendant). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Rufus Scoville Watson, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
John A. Erickson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
The right of contribution accorded by the Pennsylvania statute to one joint tortfeasor against the other creates a cause of action of a different nature from the tort action which is the subject of the original suit, and it would be at least possible to argue that, for that reason, the doctrine of immunity of a municipal corporation from liability for the negligence of its officers does not apply to a third-party action for contribution—even if it be assumed that the doctrine can be asserted against the United States. However, the third-party plaintiff in this case cannot make that argument because the third-party complaint does not plead or suggest a joint tort.
The third-party action against the City is predicated upon an act of negligence subsequent to and wholly separate and distinct from that which is the basis of the original action. After describing the alleged negligent act of the city policeman, which occurred in the course of placing the plaintiff in the police ambulance, the third-party complaint proceeds "All damages, injuries, and losses resulting to plaintiffs were caused solely by the negligence of third-party defendant's agents, servants or employees, through the careless, reckless and improper treatment of plaintiff Rosebud H. Martin". This might be a good defense to the original action but it does not describe any claim which the United States has or may have against the City of Philadelphia. It no more resembles a joint tort than if the allegation had been that, on the way to the hospital, a policeman on the sidewalk, pursuing a fugitive, had accidentally shot the plaintiff.
The motion to dismiss the third-party plaintiff's complaint is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WD Rubright Co. v. International Harvester Co., Civ. A. No. 68-482.
...as a recovery in assumpsit or contract rather than one in tort. Harger v. Caputo, 420 Pa. 528, 218 A.2d 108 (1966); Martin v. United States, 162 F.Supp. 441 (D.C. 1958); Parker, to use of Bunting v. Rodgers, 125 Pa.Super. 48, 189 A. 693 In fact, the right to contribution accorded by the Pen......
-
Tesch v. United States, Civ. A. No. 81-3956.
...the third-party action is appropriate. Klotz v. Superior Electric Products Corp., 498 F.Supp. 1099 (E.D. Pa. 1980); Martin v. United States, 162 F.Supp. 441 (E.D. Pa. 1958). The United States' claim for contribution has two facets. Count II of the Amended Third Party Complaint asserts that ......
-
Matter of Reading Company, 71-828.
...was the subject of the original suit or claim," W. D. Rubright Co. v. International Harvester Co., supra at 1391; see Martin v. United States, 162 F.Supp. 441 (E.D.Pa.1958). This right has, in fact, been characterized as dual: a right in equity and a right at law sounding in quasi contract.......
-
Corning Glass Works v. Puerto Rico Water Resources Auth., 7055.
...to sue at any time the party sought to be impleaded. Cf. Goldberg v. Faull, 275 F.Supp. 96 (E.D. Tenn.1967); Martin v. United States, 162 F.Supp. 441 (E.D.Pa.1958). The Puerto Rico workmen's compensation cases cited4 to us by appellee, premised as they are on an exclusive remedy theory, fal......