Skinner v. United States

Decision Date17 June 1960
Docket NumberCiv. No. 4264.
Citation209 F. Supp. 854
PartiesPhillip SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ED GEIGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., and Edward C. Simon Painting Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois

Edward Murphy, East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiff.

Carl W. Feickert, U. S. Atty., East St. Louis, Ill., for defendant.

Oehmke, Dunham & Boman, East St. Louis, Ill., and Dreman & Sterling, Belleville, Ill., for third-party defendant Ed Geiger Const. Co., Inc.

Robert R. Schwarz, St. Louis, Mo., and Walker & Williams, East St. Louis, Ill., for third-party defendant Edward C. Simon Painting Co., Inc.

JUERGENS, District Judge.

This suit against the United States arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Sections 2671, 2680, and Section 1346(b), Title 28 U.S.C.A.

The plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he is a citizen of the United States and was injured at Scott Air Force Base near Belleville, Illinois, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois; that at all times pertinent the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety; that on the 22nd day of September, 1958, while performing his duties as a painter, plaintiff had placed a ladder against a hangar door at defendant's Scott Air Force Base and had climbed up said ladder approximately 25 feet and was in the process of painting said hangar door when it was caused to move, thereby causing the plaintiff to be thrown to the ground and injured; that the defendant was guilty of one or more negligent acts or omissions:

"(a) That at the time and place aforesaid defendant did negligently and carelessly move said hangar door when it knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that movement of said door would cause plaintiff to be thrown to the ground and injured.
"(b) That at the time and place aforesaid defendant negligently and carelessly failed to properly maintain the opening mechanism of said hangar door thereby causing it to move and as a result thereof plaintiff was thrown to the ground and injured as hereinafter more fully set forth.
"(c) That at the time and place aforesaid defendant negligently and carelessly failed to use a proper method to keep said hangar door in a stationary position while plaintiff was painting said door.";

that as a direct and proximate result of one or more of the negligent acts or omissions, the plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries for which he prays damages.

In an amendment to the complaint the plaintiff alleges he was working as a painter on a ladder placed against the hangar door, which was a part of a building located on defendant's premises, and that the said hangar and hangar door were under the exclusive control of the defendant; that by and through the negligence of the defendant the hangar door was suddenly caused to be moved, throwing the plaintiff to the ground and injuring him, for which he prays damages.

The defendant, United States of America, has filed its amended third-party complaint against Ed Geiger Construction Company, Inc., and Edward C. Simon Painting Company, Inc., wherein it alleges, among other things, that the defendant and third-party plaintiff is guilty of no actionable negligence or its negligence, if any, is passive, secondary and subordinate, while the acts or omissions on the part of the third-party defendants, Ed Geiger Construction Company, Inc., and Edward C. Simon Painting Company, Inc., were primary, active and direct, and prays that in the event liability be found against the United States, then judgment be rendered over and against the third-party defendants for all sums that may be adjudged against the defendant, United States of America, in favor of the plaintiff.

The third-party defendant, Edward C. Simon Painting Company, Inc., has filed its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint as to it and states therefor the following reasons:

"(1) That said Complaint fails to state a cause of action on any grounds for which relief can be granted against this defendant.
"(2) That the Illinois Workmen's Compensation Law is a bar
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Shell Oil Company v. Foster-Wheeler Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois
    • September 26, 1962
    ...Mobile & Ohio R. Co. v. Arthur Dixon Transfer Co., 343 Ill.App. 148, 98 N.E.2d 783 (1951). As this court said in Skinner v. United States, 1960, D.C., 209 F.Supp. 854: "Under Illinois law there exists a general principle that there is no contribution among tort-feasors. There are, however, ......
  • Marshall v. Russell R. Ewin, Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 26, 1972
    ...allegations as laid, the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted and the motion must be denied.' Skinner v. United States, (1962) D.C.Ill., 209 F.Supp. 854.' Much of the reasoning which defendants-appellants rely upon for reversal of the trial court for not sustaining thei......
  • Berkman v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 2, 1962
    ... ... and A. & I. Kaplan Co., Inc., Plaintiffs, ... TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Defendant ... United States District Court S. D. New York ... November 2, 1962.        Kelly, Donovan, Robinson ... ...

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