Petition of Hutchinson
| Citation | 28 F. Supp. 519 |
| Parties | Petition of HUTCHINSON. THE SPARE TIME II. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1938 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Purdy & Lamb, of New York City, for the motion.
Foley & Martin, of New York City, opposed.
The question presented is whether Robinson, or any other person allegedly injured on a yacht owned by Hutchinson, gave to or filed with Hutchinson, a written notice of claim prior to the commencement of an action by Robinson in the State Supreme Court? In re Grasselli, 2 Cir., 20 F.Supp. 394, 1937 A.M.C. 1070.
The petitioner Hutchinson is, and at the times mentioned herein was, the owner of the yacht "Spare Time II". During the afternoon of June 7, 1937, while Robinson was on board engaged in repairing a bilge pump on the yacht as she lay in Greenport Harbor, Long Island, an explosion, followed by a fire, occurred by which Robinson and others were injured. About 11 months thereafter, on or about April 28, 1938, an action was commenced by Robinson against Hutchinson in the Supreme Court, State of New York, by which he seeks to recover damages for alleged personal injuries in the sum of $50,000. On June 13, 1938, Hutchinson duly answered said complaint and the action is at issue on the calendar of the Supreme Court, County of Suffolk, State of New York.
Within six months following the commencement of the said action, Hutchinson, on September 30, 1938, filed, in this court, a petition for limitation of his liability etc. Judge Byers on that day signed the usual restraining order and the order appointing a commissioner.
On October 13, 1938, counsel for Robinson, appearing specially, made this motion for an order dismissing this petition of Hutchinson on the ground that it was not filed in time in accordance with the Act of Congress, as amended, relating to limitation of liability. Title 46, U.S.C., § 185, 46 U.S.C.A. § 185.
This section, so far as material, provides that "the vessel owner, within six months after a claimant shall have given to or filed with such owner written notice of claim, may petition" etc.
This limitation on the unlimited right heretofore enjoyed by shipowners is the result of the amendment of June 5, 1936, Chap. 521, § 3, 49 Stat. 1480.
If therefore the commencement of the suit by Robinson was the first written claim given to or filed with Hutchinson he had a right to file his petition and this motion to dismiss must be denied. Mere knowledge of an accident or information given orally by a third party or even by a claimant does not come within the new restriction placed upon the remedy provided or right given to a vessel owner.
However, counsel for Robinson assert that the said action was not the first written claim given to Hutchinson or filed etc.
We must turn to the affidavits submitted in order to find whether this is so or not.
Immediately after the accident Robinson and the others were taken to a hospital and there received treatment for their injuries. The bills for such treatment were made out to each of the injured persons. They did not pay them. Whereupon they were mailed by the hospital to Hutchinson. This was because a doctor connected with the hospital says that Hutchinson told him that he, Hutchinson, would pay them. Thereafter an officer of the hospital, who was also attorney for same, wrote Hutchinson requesting him to pay these bills because of the understanding that Hutchinson had agreed to pay them. Robinson, in his affidavit, states "I wrote no claim personally to Hutchinson because it was many months before I could hold a pen". Nor is there any evidence offered of any written claim given or filed by the others except in the manner above stated.
All of these efforts by the hospital to obtain payment of its bills made out to the individuals based on the promise of Hutchinson to pay them took place either within a few weeks or months after the accident or at least during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steuart Investment Co. v. Bauer Dredging Const. Co.
...relation to the ship, her master and crew, and not that liability which he voluntarily assumes by express contract. Petition of Hutchinson, 28 F. Supp. 519 (E.D.N.Y.1938). These cases involved personal contracts for the carriage of goods where a warranty, either expressly or impliedly, was ......
-
Jung Hyun Sook v. Great Pac. Shipping Co.
...Inc., 224 F.Supp. 573, 575 (S.D. Cal. 1963); Petition of Anthony O'Boyle, 51 F.Supp. 430, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 1943); Petition of Hutchinson, 28 F.Supp. 519, 520 (E.D.N.Y. 1938).7 See British Transport Commission v. United States, 354 U.S. 129, 142, 77 S.Ct. 1103, 1110, 1 L.Ed.2d 1234 (1957); Peti......
-
Navieros Oceanikos, SA v. ST Mobil Trader
...U.S. 891, 82 S.Ct. 144, 7 L.Ed.2d 89. 7 Cullen Fuel Co. v. Hedger Co., 290 U.S. 82, 54 S.Ct. 10, 78 L.Ed. 189 (1933); The Spare Time II, 28 F.Supp. 519 (E.D.N.Y.1938); Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty § 10-26 (2d ed. ...
-
Petition of American MARC, Inc., 63-397.
...respect to which the petitioner is entitled to limit his liability. This requirement was set out as early as 1938 in Petition of Hutchinson, 28 F.Supp. 519 (E.D.N.Y.1938). In Hutchinson claimants were injured in an explosion on a boat. They were taken to, and spent some time in, a certain h......
-
Resolved: Is 46 U.S.C. [section] 30501(a) a Jurisdictional Statute of Limitations or a Mandatory Claims Processing Rule?
...the complaint may be filed in any district). (66) See The Graselli Chem. Co., 20 F. Supp. 394 (S.D. N.Y. 1937); In re Hutchinson, 28 F. Supp. 519 (E.D. N.Y. 1938); In re Spearin, Preston & Burrows, Inc., 190 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1951); In re Capital Marine Supply, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135......