Rowe v. John C. Motter Printing Press Company

Decision Date17 August 1967
Docket Number3502.,Civ. A. No. 3323
Citation273 F. Supp. 363
PartiesBeverly ROWE, in her Capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Warren S. Rowe, Plaintiff, v. JOHN C. MOTTER PRINTING PRESS COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LOCKWOOD GREENE ENGINEERS, INC., Providence Gravure, Inc., James J. O'Rourke d/b/a O'Rourke Company, the Anderson Sheet Metal Company and E. Turgeon Construction Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendants. Beverly ROWE, in her Capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Warren S. Rowe, Plaintiff, v. LOCKWOOD GREENE ENGINEERS, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JOHN C. MOTTER PRINTING PRESS COMPANY, James J. O'Rourke d/b/a O'Rourke Electric Company, the Anderson Sheet Metal Company, Providence Gravure, Inc., and E. Turgeon Construction Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

Guy J. Wells, of Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Providence, R. I., Thomas D. Gidley, of Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Providence, R. I., for plaintiff.

Joseph V. Cavanagh, John P. Cooney, Jr., and John F. Dolan, Providence, R. I., for John C. Motter Printing Press Co.

Joseph A. Kelly, Providence, R. I., for James J. O'Rourke d/b/a O'Rourke Co.

William A. Curran, Providence, R. I., for E. Turgeon Const. Co., Inc.

Owen P. Reid, Edward J. Regan, Providence, R. I., for Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc.

Eldridge H. Henning, Jr., Edward F. Hindle, Associate Counsel, Providence, R. I., for Providence Gravure, Inc.

No appearance for the Anderson Sheet Metal Co.

DAY, Chief Judge.

In each of these actions, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, one Warren S. Rowe, who, while cleaning a printing press belonging to his employer, Providence Gravure, Inc., sustained severe burns that caused his death. In her complaint, in each of these actions, she alleges that said injuries to and the death of the decedent were caused by the negligence of the defendant named therein.

In Civil Action No. 3323, the defendant, John C. Motter Printing Press Company, as a third-party plaintiff has filed a third-party complaint, in Count V of which it denies that it was negligent as alleged by the plaintiff, but avers that if it was negligent, the fire and resulting injuries and death were caused by the joint negligence of itself and the third-party defendant, Providence Gravure, Inc., and seeks contribution from said Providence Gravure, Inc. in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, Section 10-6-1 et seq. in the event it shall be adjudged liable in damages in any amount to the plaintiff for the death of the said Warren S. Rowe.

Similarly, in Civil Action No. 3502, Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., the defendant, as a third-party plaintiff has filed a third-party complaint, in Count IV of which it likewise denies that it was negligent and asserts that if it was negligent, the fire and resulting injuries and death were caused by the joint or several negligence of itself and the third-party defendant, Providence Gravure, Inc., and seeks contribution from said Providence Gravure, Inc. in accordance with the provisions of said Act in the event that it shall be adjudged liable in damages in any amount to the plaintiff for the death of the said Warren S. Rowe.

Providence Gravure, Inc. has moved "to strike" each of said counts on the following grounds, viz.; (1) that it fails to state a claim against Providence Gravure, Inc. upon which relief can be granted; (2) that it and the said Warren S. Rowe, its employee, and his injuries and resulting death were subject to and covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, Section 28-29-1 et seq.; (3) that the plaintiff, in each of these actions, as the dependent of said Warren S. Rowe and it have entered into an agreement approved by the Director of Labor of the State of Rhode Island on July 3, 1963 (an attested copy of which is attached to each of said motions) for the payment of compensation to her for his death in accordance with the provisions of said Workmen's Compensation Act; and (4) that as the employer of said deceased employee and subject to said Act, it is not a joint tortfeasor within the meaning of said Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act.

Counsel for the defendant and third-party plaintiff in each of these actions concede that Providence Gravure, Inc. and its employee, Warren S. Rowe, and his injuries and death were covered by said Workmen's Compensation Act. Since there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the coverage of said Act, said motions "to strike" will be considered by me as motions by Providence Gravure, Inc. as motions for summary judgment in its favor on each of said counts.

The question of whether a third person tortfeasor who is found to be liable in damages for a workman's injuries or death is entitled to recover contribution from the workman's employer whose negligence concurred in causing the injuries or death where the employer, the employee and particular injury and death are covered by the Rhode Island Workmen's Compensation Act has never been passed upon by the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island. The great majority of the decided cases hold that the employer's liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act is exclusive of all other liability and that a third person tortfeasor is not entitled to recover contribution from the employer despite the fact that the latter's negligence concurred in causing the injury or death where the employer, the employee and the injury or death are covered by the provisions of a workmen's compensation act. See Annotation, 53 A.L.R.2d 977, 979.

Section 10-6-2 of the General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, defines the term "joint tortfeasors" as follows:

"Joint tortfeasors defined.—For the purposes of this chapter the term `joint tortfeasors' means two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property, whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of them."

And Section 10-6-3 thereof then provides:

"Right of contribution declared.—The right of contribution exists among joint tortfeasors."

One of the primary purposes of said Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act was to create a right of contribution among joint tortfeasors which did not exist at common law. Hackett v. Hyson, 1946, 72 R.I. 132, 48 A.2d 353, 166 A.L.R. 1096. But it is well settled that its provisions are only applicable where there is a common liability to an injured...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Newport Air Park, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • November 29, 1968
    ......1958) (New Jersey law); Rowe v. John C. Motter Printing Press Co., 273 F. ......
  • Montgomery County v. Valk Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 6, 1989
    ...is sought. The right of contribution is a derivative right and not a new cause of action.") (quoting Rowe v. John C. Motter Printing Press Co., 273 F.Supp. 363, 365 (D.R.I.1967)).15 Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota and South Carolina do not appear to have considered the issue......
  • A AND B CONST., INC. v. Atlas Roofing and Skylight Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • October 17, 1994
    ...not an independent cause of action. Cacchillo v. H. Leach Mach. Co., 111 R.I. 593, 305 A.2d 541, 543 (1973); Rowe v. John C. Motter Printing Press Co., 273 F.Supp. 363 (D.R.I.1967). Indemnity, on the other hand, is an independent cause of action. When implied-in-law, indemnity results in th......
  • Roy v. Star Chopper Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • November 3, 1977
    ...(1st Cir. 1969). 4 The courts have clearly held that employers have immunity from claims for contribution, Rowe v. John C. Motter Printing Press Co., 273 F.Supp. 363 (D.R.I.1967), Cacchillo v. H. Leach Machinery Co., 111 R.I. 593, 305 A.2d 541 (1973); but do not have immunity from claims fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT