Petition of Esso Shipping Co.
Decision Date | 16 March 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 1058.,1058. |
Citation | 121 F. Supp. 837 |
Parties | Petition of ESSO SHIPPING CO. THE ESSO SUEZ. THE ESSO GREENSBORO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Baker, Botts, Andrews & Parish (W. C. Harvin), Houston, Tex., and Kirlin, Campbell & Keating (Joseph M. Cunningham, Bronxville, and Walter X. Connor), New York City, for petitioner, Esso Shipping Co.
Mandell & Wright (Arthur J. Mandell), Houston, Tex., for claimant, Raymond Richards.
On April 20, 1951, about 4:20 A. M., there was a collision in the Gulf of Mexico between the Steamship Esso Suez and the Steamship Esso Greensboro. Both were oil tankers and were owned and operated by the Esso Shipping Company. Many of the officers and members of the crew on both vessels met death or were injured. There was heavy property damage. There followed numerous claims for damages against the vessels and the Esso Shipping Company.
Moving under the Statute and Rules, Title 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 183 to 189, and Admiralty Rule 51 et seq., 28 U.S.C.A., the Esso Shipping Company (for brevity called petitioner), on October 4, 1951, filed in this court its petition for exoneration from, and limitation of liability as to, the claims of all of such persons. On such date, the court by order required all such claims to be filed herein and fixed December 1, 1951, as the date by which all such claims should be filed. Later by several orders the court enlarged the time for filing claims to February 15, 1952. On March 18, 1952, petitioner Esso Shipping Company was duly awarded default judgment, cutting off the claims of all persons whose claims had not been filed within the time fixed.
On October 12, 1953, two years and five months after the collision and one year and six months after the expiration of the time fixed by the court for filing claims, Raymond Richards (for brevity called claimant) filed a motion herein, praying to be allowed to file and prosecute a claim for damages against such vessels and Esso Shipping Company. He alleges that before, and at the time of, such collision, he was a seaman on the Esso Suez, and that he was injured in such collision, for which he claims damages. The Shipping Company filed in answer to such motion an affidavit of its attorney, with exhibits attached, in which it combats such motion on the ground that claimant was guilty of laches and inexcusable delay in presenting his claim, etc.
The nature of claimant's claim is stated in the margin.1 This is a hearing under Local District Court Rule 25 of claimant's motion.
Under the facts hereinafter pointed out, claimant does not show good cause for failure to present his claim within the time fixed by the court, but clearly shows that he was guilty of laches and that his delay was inexcusable.
The rule is thus stated in In re Eastern Dredging Co., D.C., 159 F. 549, 551:
Other cases are The James Sheridan, D.C., 73 F.Supp. 739, 740; In re Agwi Nav. Co., 2 Cir., 89 F.2d 11; Tesoriero v. A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi, D. C., 113 F.Supp. 544. Other cases having same bearing on the matter are McChristian v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., D.C., 94 F. Supp. 149; Kane v. Union of Soviet, D. C., 89 F.Supp. 435, Id., 3 Cir., 189 F.2d 303. McGrath v. Panama R. R. Co., 298 F. 303; Redman v. U. S., 5 Cir., 176 F.2d 713; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Rhine, 5 Cir., 152 F.2d 368; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Oberlechner, 161 F.2d 180; The Sydfold, 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 611; Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., D. C., 109 F.Supp. 585, Id., 5 Cir., 208 F.2d 218. The cases cited by claimant do not hold to the contrary.2
(a) Claimant sets forth in his affidavit that at the time of the collision, he had been employed on the Esso Suez for approximately one year. That he was on the Esso Suez and was asleep at the time of the collision. That when he awoke, his room was filled with fire and smoke, and that his right hand was burned. That on the vessel's arrival at Mobile, Alabama, a physician bandaged his hand. Nothing further is shown regarding the injury to his hand. Apparently it was not a serious injury, and presumably he quickly recovered therefrom. Clearly the injury to his hand does not excuse his delay.
(b) In such affidavit, claimant says:
Attached to the affidavit, there are four exhibits, being four certificates (two of which are apparently duplicates), showing purported diagnosis of claimant's physical condition by physicians. They are dated in August and September 1953, more than two years after the collision.3 Apparently the New Haven, mentioned in the affidavit, was owned and operated also by the Esso Shipping Company.
Assuming that the physical condition of claimant was as stated, it is clear that it did not prevent him from being active. He worked for the Esso Shipping Company to August 5, 1953. It did not prevent him from filing and presenting his claim here, and does not excuse his delay.
Clearly any reasonably prudent person with the information that claimant had, both about his physical condition and about these proceedings, would have seasonably filed his claim. Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., supra.
(c) Claimant also says in his affidavit that he did not file his claim because he did not want to jeopardize his job with the Esso Shipping Company.
It may be doubted whether this statement is frankly made, when it is considered that it is shown in the Esso Shipping Company's answer to claimant's motion that between the time of the collision and the time that he left the employ of the Esso Shipping Company, he claimed to have sustained other injuries and presented claims therefor to the Esso Shipping Company.
(d) When the affidavit, etc., of petitioner, Esso Shipping Company, is considered, there is still less to support claimant's motion.
Reference is made to a statement made by claimant on April 21, 1951, the day after the collision. Also later supplemental statements made by him—September 13, 1951, and September 26, 1951 —chiefly with respect to the claim or claims which he had against Esso Shipping Company which arose subsequent to the collision. Also statements made in connection with a final settlement with Esso Shipping Company in June 1953.
In the statement of April 21, 1951, he describes his injuries received in the collision as Neither in this statement nor in his later statements does he mention the physical condition now complained of in his claim, which if it existed at all must have existed when all the later statements were made.
(e) Whatever may be said with respect to whether the releases signed by claimant after the time of the collision would release the claim which he is now asserting, the fact that claimant was willing to sign such releases, which might include damages received in the collision, is a circumstance causing doubt about the merits of his present claim and his explanation for his delay in filing it.
3: Not only does claimant fail to show excusable delay in filing his claim, but he fails to show that the Esso Shipping Company will not be injured or prejudiced by such delay. The rule is correctly stated in McChristian v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 149, 150,4 as follows: as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Finley v. United States
... ... Court for the Southern District of New York, which on the authority of Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc., v. McAllister, 337 U.S. 783, 69 S.Ct. 1317, 93 L.Ed. 1692, dismissed the complaint on ... , brought into the suit by an order entered on June 4, 1954, granting the United States' petition to implead filed on May 25, 1954, under Admiralty Rule 56, 28 U. S.C.A., relating to the "right to ... 220, 27 S.Ct. 246, 51 L.Ed. 450; James McWilliams Blue Line, Inc., v. Esso Standard Oil Co., D.C., 123 F.Supp. 824, 826, for the proposition that where a respondent claims a ... ...
-
West v. Upper Mississippi Towing Corporation
... ... Marshall v. International Mercantile Marine Co., 39 F.2d 551, 552 (2d Cir. 1930). Petition of Esso Shipping Co., 121 F.Supp. 837 (S.D.Tex.1954), cited by defendant, is distinguishable on the ... ...
-
Walle v. Dallett
... ... 4 Petition of Esso Shipping Co., D.C.S.D. Tex.1954, 121 F.Supp. 837; Kane v. Union of Soviet Socialist ... ...