Smith v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation, 17729.
| Decision Date | 06 August 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 17729.,17729. |
| Parties | George SMITH, Plaintiff, v. PAN-ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff (RYAN STEVEDORING COMPANY, Inc., Third-Party Defendant). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., for George Smith.
Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp.
Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., for Ryan Stevedoring Co.
In this action, brought by a longshoreman, an employee of Ryan, the stevedoring contractor, against the shipowner, for personal injuries sustained while engaged in the work of loading the ship, judgment was entered upon a special verdict in favor of the plaintiff against Pan-Atlantic, the shipowner, and also in favor of Pan-Atlantic against Ryan on the basis of its liability as an indemnitor.
There is nothing in the case to bring into play the doctrine of liability based on "active" or "primary" negligence on the part of the stevedore. The only ground for this third-party action is the contractual obligation assumed by the stevedore to do the work in a proper, safe and workmanlike manner.
The jury's findings that the winch was defective and that its condition caused the accident were amply justified by the evidence and are not questioned at this time. The theory on which the shipowner asks indemnity is that the stevedore's obligation to do the work properly was breached because it's ship boss with knowledge of the defective condition permitted his men to continue to use the winch, after having reported the defect to the ship's officers and being aware that it had not been remedied. On this point the case is almost on all fours with Hagans v. Farrell Lines, 3 Cir., 237 F.2d 477. In that case, the Court pointed out (at page 482) that the shipowner based its claim, partly at least, "upon the asserted neglect of Lavino (the stevedore) * * * in using the winch knowing its condition to be defective." The Court refused to allow indemnity, saying, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Misurella v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.
...Cir.), cert. denied, Daniels & Kennedy, Inc. v. A/S Inger, 371 U.S. 925, 83 S.Ct. 292, 9 L.Ed. 2d 232 (1962). 15 Smith v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 161 F.Supp. 422 (E.D.Pa.1957), aff'd 254 F. 2d 600 (3d Cir., 1958); United States v. Harrison, 245 F.2d 911 (9th Cir., 1957); Amerocean S.S. Co.......
-
Simpson v. Royal Rotterdam Lloyd
...CODE 7, 8 (1955). 30 There is a contra line of cases. Smith v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 254 F.2d 600 (3 Cir. 1958), affirming, 161 F.Supp. 422 (E.D.Penn.1957); United States v. Harrison, 245 F.2d 911 (9 Cir. 1957); Thompson v. Trent Maritime Co., 222 F. Supp. 221 (E.D.Penn.1963). See Hodgso......
-
Pacific Far East Line v. California Stevedore & Ballast Co.
...Lines, Inc., 237 F.2d 477 (3d Cir. 1956), and Smith v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation, 254 F.2d 600 (3d Cir. 1958) affirming 161 F.Supp. 422 (E.D.Pa. 1957). But see dissent of J. Biggs on petition for rehearing in Hagans, supra, at p. 483 and in Hodgson v. Lloyd Brasileiro Patrimonio Na......
-
Nederlandsch-Amerikaansche - Stoomvaart - Maatschappij; Holland-America Line v. Vassallo
...have waived recovery on the theory of breach of contract. In support of their theory the contractor has cited Smith v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation, D.C., 161 F.Supp. 422, aff'd per curiam 254 F.2d 600, 3rd Cir., 1958, in which the court said that it may have been negligence for the s......