Todd Shipyards Corporation v. United States, 33.
| Decision Date | 14 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 33.,33. |
| Citation | 69 F. Supp. 609 |
| Parties | TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Nathan W. Thompson, of Portland, Me. and Crowell & Rouse, of New York City, for libelants.
Albert T. Gould, of Boston, Mass., Fred C. Scribner and Sigred E. Tompkins, both of Portland, Me., specially for Steel Products Co.
The libellant here seeks to recover for damage to its property caused by the failure of a boom block alleged to be due to negligence in its construction by the manufacturer, respondent Steel Products Company.
The block was not purchased of that company by the libellant, but was furnished by the Navy Department for which the libellant was repairing a vessel when the block broke, — according to the allegations in the libel.
The respondent, Steel Products Company, has filed what is entitled a plea to the jurisdiction. It takes the form of a motion to dismiss because no cause of action is stated, either in admiralty or under the common law.
I do not think the point that the action is one for a breach of warranty is well taken. I think the action is one for a maritime tort and consider that the substantial question raised by the motion is whether the libellant, who has suffered injury to its property, must be denied the right to recover damages for the alleged negligence because it had no contractual relation to or privity of contract with the defendant manufacturer.
That the case is one of maritime tort and that the applicable principles of the law involved are a part of the general law of torts, maritime as well as common law, I feel assured, and I think that view is supported by the case of Sieraki v. Seas Shipping Co., 3 Cir., 149 F.2d 98.
Assuming that position to be correct, then the argument for the Steel Products Company runs like this:—There is a doctrine or general rule to the effect that the manufacturer of an article is not liable for negligence in its manufacture to a third person with whom he has had no contractual relations: from time to time the requirements of justice have compelled the courts to make exceptions to this rule, — notably where human life and safety were concerned and the article or product is inherently dangerous; but, it is argued, there is no clear-cut case where an exception has been extended to cover property damage as distinct from personal injury, and it is urged that the courts should be slow and reluctant to make another exception authorizing recovery for damage to property.
I think the answer to that argument is that if we consider the rule as in force, and that this is a matter of enlarging the exceptions, there is no reasonable ground for making a distinction between injury to property and injury to the person. How can a general principle authorizing recovery of damages for the negligent act of another permit a man to recover for a sprained ankle and not for the destruction of his house? The real answer to the argument, however, is that the asserted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Warranty Corp. v. Caldwell
...to include harm to property, see e.g., United States Radiator Corp. v. Henderson, 68 F.2d 87 (10th Cir.1933); Todd Shipyards Corp. v. United States, 69 F.Supp. 609 (D.Me.1947), and to liability caused by goods which involved no recognizable risk of personal injury. See e.g., Cohan v. Associ......
-
Foley v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co.
... ... McIntyre, submitted a brief for A. O. Smith Corporation, ... amicus curiae ... Before ... MAXEY, C.J., ... Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 25 F.Supp ... 1006; Todd Shipyards Corporation v. United States , ... 69 F.Supp ... ...
-
JW Petersen Coal & Oil Co. v. United States
...was maritime in nature. See also Patel Cotton Co. v. The Steel Traveler, 111 F.Supp. 821 (S.D.N.Y. 1953); Todd Shipyards Corporation v. United States, 69 F.Supp. 609 (D.Me. 1947); The S.S. Samovar, 72 F.Supp. 574 2. Occurrence of injury on land. When the operation of a vessel resulted in in......
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. American President Lines, Ltd.
...point within admiralty jurisdiction. See, Patel Cotton Co. v. The Steel Traveler, 111 F. Supp. 821 (SDNY 1953); Todd Shipyards Corp. v. United States, 69 F.Supp. 609 (D.Me.1947); The S. S. Samovar, 72 F.Supp. 574 (N.D.Cal.1947). There is an unavoidable and solidifying relationship between t......