Ryan v. Bethlehem Sparrows Point Shipyard
Decision Date | 06 December 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 6308.,6308. |
Citation | 192 F.2d 636 |
Parties | RYAN v. BETHLEHEM SPARROWS POINT SHIPYARD, Inc. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert E. Coughlan, Jr., Baltimore, Md. (Robert G. Sheller, Joseph J. Brophy, New York City, and Lord, Whip & Coughlan, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellant.
Norman P. Ramsey, Baltimore, Md. (Rignal W. Baldwin and Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, all of Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, Ryan, brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of defendant's negligence. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the defendant's motion. Both motions were argued together. The District Judge sustained the defendant's motion. Later plaintiff moved to reargue defendant's motion and asked the District Judge to set aside his order dismissing the complaint. This last motion was denied. Plaintiff has duly appealed. We think the defendant's motion for summary judgment was improvidently granted, that the judgment of the District Court must be reversed and the case remanded to that Court for further proceedings.
Plaintiff's complaint stated:
Defendant's motion to dismiss contained the following allegations:
The defendant's motion was granted by the District Court on the basis of this allegation and the case of State to Use of Hubert v. Bejamin F. Bennett Building Co., 154 Md. 159, 140 A. 52.
It seems quite clear that defendant's motion could not have been granted solely on the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, which did not even allege that plaintiff was an employee of the Carrier Corporation or that defendant was an independent contractor in building the vessel. It was stated in plaintiff's motion to dismiss the motion, however, that he was an employee of the Carrier Corporation and this was admitted on the argument of the motions as was also the fact that defendant was constructing the vessel under contract for A. C. Tankers, Inc. We think that plaintiff for the purposes of the motion to dismiss, is bound by these admissions. U. S. Hoffman Machinery Corporation v. Richa, D.C., 78 F.Supp. 969; Kirkham v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., D.C., 78 F.Supp. 658; Frankel v. Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, Inc., D.C., 46 F.Supp. 242, 243, affirmed, 4 Cir., 132 F.2d 634. At the same time, plaintiff's counsel strenuously denied that Carrier Corporation was a sub-contractor of defendant so as to bring the case within the Maryland...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Company
...because, under § 62, Article 101, he may be required to pay or secure compensation to that employee. Ryan v. Bethlehem Sparrows Point Shipyard, 192 F.2d 636 (4 Cir. 1951); State to Use of Hubert v. Benjamin F. Bennett Bldg. Co., 154 Md. 159, 140 A. 52 (1928); State to Use of Reynolds v. Cit......
-
Ryan v. Bethlehem Sparrows Point Shipyard, 6624.
...dismissed Ryan's complaint. On appeal, we held the motion was improvidently granted and remanded the case for further proceedings, 4 Cir., 192 F.2d 636. On remand, the motion to dismiss was again granted. This motion was argued before the District Judge on a stipulation embracing facts mate......