# Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae — Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386409_0299%3A5 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae - **Published:** January 1, 1960 - **Citation:** 364 U.S. 421 ## Text pa eee rah Sgt 8 8 Ae , e ; Opinions below.. Jurisdictioonn F Interest of the United States 8 bee Summary of Argument Argument: I. The shipowner's right to indemnity c on the stevedoring. contractor’s warranty exists where the contractor is hired by the con- signee of the cargo 6 II. The right to indemnity exists * the Whip- owner suffers loss in personam 11 JW ͤ A 1 13 = CITATIONS Cases: : Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 * TPTA AAA 7 Crumady v. The Jane Hendrik Fisser, 358 „„ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U.S. r a on 8 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, c dN 10 Müchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 530. 7,13 Ryan Stevedoring Co. Inc. v. Fun- Allantie Corp. is , ̃ A 4, 5, 7, 11 Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85. 7, 10, 11 The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158888. 12 Weyerhaeuser 8.5. Co. v. Nacirema Co., 355 U.S. 00 Same nn 56128360 . (I) 9 Miscellaneous: Restatement of Contracts, Section —— Robinson on nn. 857 p. 99333 3s te — Gout of the United ure Ooronrn TERN, 1960 No, 35 ' WarerMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, PETITIONER | 3 Dugan & McNamara, INC. - | ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TQ THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE OPINIONS BELOW The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed no written opinion in directing a verdict against the petitioner (R. 13-17). The first opinion of the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Third Circuit. (R. 20-26), later with- drawn, is reported at 1959 AMC 411. The second opinion of the Court of Appeals (R. n is 2. at 272 F. 2d 823. The W of the Court of Appeals was entered on November 17, 1959 (R. 38). The petition for ceertiorari was filed on February 11, 1960, and granted 5 (1) 3 2 on March 28, 1960.. The jurisdiction of this Court rests on 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). | Whether a 1 has a right of indemnity directly against a stevedoring contractor hired by the consignee of the ship’s cargo, when the shipowner suffers a liability in personam as a result of the con- tractor’s breach of warranty of workmanlike service. | STATEMENT ‘Petitioner Waterman. Steamship Corporation is the owner of the vessel S. S. Afoundria. Respondent, Dugan & McNamara, Inc., a stevedoring contractor, was engaged in unloading the vessel in Philadelphia on August 9, 1952, when Jasper King, one of its long—. shoremen, was injured by being struck by several one- hundred pound bags of sugar (R. 3-5). King sued petitioner in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the:bags had fallen on bim as a result of a petitioner’ 8 negligence and the unseaworthiness of the vessel. ‘Petitioner thereafter entered into a settlement agreement under which it paid King $6,867.55 (R. 9. 14), and filed a third-party complaint against re- spondent to recover it. This complaint, as amended - (R. 7-10), asserted that respondent had adopted an unsafe unloading procedure under which tiers of bags were allowed to stand at a height of six feet or more _* Respondent has agreed that this represented a reasonable settlement for King’s injury, assuming petitioner was liable- for King's injuries (see respondent’s brief in opposition to the peti- tion for certiorari, p. 4). . : : | . 3 without support, and that this failure “‘to perferm the _ contracted stevedoring services in a safe, proper, cus toma ry, careful and workmanlike manner under the circumstances” was the direct, proximate, and substan- tial cause of, the injury to King (R. 8-9). At the trial, the parties stipulated that there was no express agreement between petitioner and respondent for the unloading of the ship (R. 12-13). The dis- trict court directed a verdict on the ground that, since tere was no direct contractual ‘relationship: between petitioner and respondent, petitioner had no right of indemnity against the respondent (R. 16).’ Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Cireuit. On January 16, 1959, that court, en banc, Chief Judge Biggs dissenting, filed an opinion affirming the district court on the basis of the lack of contractual relationship between the parties (R. 20-26). N On February 24, 1959, this Court heid that a ship, ‘liable in rem to a longshoreman 4s a result of the failure of the stevedoring contractor to perform its work safely, is entitled to indemnity from the con- lt appears that the National Sugar Refining Company, as ' consignee of the S. S. Afoundria’s cargo of sugar, engaged the respondent to unload it (R. 15, 355. The court also stated that the evidence disclosed no negli- gence on the part of petitioner and that the sole caus of the ; accident was respondent's negligence in allowing the bags to be piled too high. Hence, the court reasoned, j + @.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1960 g * 0 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386409_0299%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.