THE HC JEFFERSON

• Decision Date: 09 May 1941
• Docket Number: No. 117.,117.
• Citation: 38 F. Supp. 612
• Parties: THE H. C. JEFFERSON. UNION OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA v. THE "H. C. JEFFERSON" et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

38 F. Supp. 612

THE H. C. JEFFERSON UNION OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA v. THE "H. C. JEFFERSON" et al.

No. 117.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 9, 1941.

Krusen, Evans & Shaw, of Philadelphia, Pa., for libellant.

Howard M. Long, of Philadelphia, Pa., and L. Vernon Miller and Marbury, Gosnell & Williams, all of Baltimore, Md., for respondents.

BARD, District Judge.

This case comes before the court at this time on respondents' exceptions to the libel.

Libellant brought suit to recover for damages suffered by its ship Deroche in a collision with the Pennsylvania Sun, which collision was allegedly caused by the negligence of those in charge of the H. C. Jefferson, a tugboat engaged in docking the Deroche at the time. Libellant paid the owners of the Pennsylvania Sun for the damages to that ship and therefore claims reimbursement from the respondents as well as relief for damages to the Deroche.

Respondents have filed thirteen exceptions to the libel. Disposition of the sixth exception, which questions the right of the libellant to reimbursement for money paid to the owners of the Pennsylvania Sun, was waived by respondents at the argument with the reservation that the point concerned could be raised again in the event of trial. The remaining exceptions enumerate respects in which the libel is alleged to be lacking in sufficiency, fullness and distinctness.

Admiralty Rule 22, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, provides that "* * * The libel shall * * * propound and allege in distinct articles the various allegations of fact upon which the libellant relies in support of his suit, so that the respondent or claimant may be enabled to answer distinctly and separately the several matters contained in each article; * * *."

In admiralty the parties are not held to a great nicety in pleading. W. S. Keyser & Co. v. Jurvelius, 5 Cir., 122 F. 218; Smith, Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Colombian S. S. Co., 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 392. A libel alleging with reasonable certainty the essential facts showing a legal duty and the default therein, and a resultant injury, of which it is the proximate cause, is sufficient. Jolivet v. City of Seattle, D.C., 226 F. 963. See in this regard, however, Bentley v. United States, D.C., 36 F.2d 1002.

The instant libel sets forth briefly the occurrence in question, but does not go into sufficient detail in some respects to enable distinct and separate answers to the several matters contained therein.

In their argument in support of the exceptions the respondents group them in seven classes. I will consider them as thus grouped.

The libel states: "* * * there was insufficient water for the proper maneuvering of a vessel of that draft," and that "Said docking pilot, Earl Eggers, attempted to dock said steamship when he knew or should have known that there was insufficient water." Respondents argue the libel is insufficient because it is not alleged how or why the depth of water had anything to do with the collision. There is no vagueness or uncertainty in this regard. Its substance is that the ship could not be handled properly in the existing depth of water. It follows that the mere depth of water is regarded as one...