Claim of Gypsum Carrier v. Union Camp Corp.

465 F. Supp. 1050, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14490
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia
DecidedFebruary 12, 1979
DocketCiv. A. 2798
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 465 F. Supp. 1050 (Claim of Gypsum Carrier v. Union Camp Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Claim of Gypsum Carrier v. Union Camp Corp., 465 F. Supp. 1050, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14490 (S.D. Ga. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION

LAWRENCE, Senior District Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

I.

Background of Litigation

In threatening weather, unfavorable tide and with a tornado watch in effect for the immediate area, the 580 foot Pacific Carrier headed out to sea on the night of April 23, 1971. Shortly after she was undocked a very heavy rainfall commenced. About one mile from where the vessel had undocked she collided with the Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company bridge spanning the Savannah River nearly opposite the Union Camp Corporation. The Pacific Carrier completely missed the channel opening in the bridge and knocked the structure into the river.

Seaboard filed an in rem action in this Court against the Pacific Carrier * and an in personam action against the owner and charterer.

The vessel petitioned for exoneration from and limitation of liability. Several claims were made by other vessels and companies for damages caused by the delay that ensued in clearing the wreckage so as to make the channel navigable.

Union Camp Corporation and the United States were subsequently impleaded by Pacific Carrier under Rule 14(c), F.R.Civ.P. The vessel’s claim against such third-party defendants is that smoke from the stacks of the pulp mill suddenly obstructed vision from the bridge and that the Coast Guard negligently failed to require adequate lighting to mark the 200-foot opening in the lift.

Union Camp moved to dismiss on the ground that it was not subject to the admiralty jurisdiction. This Court on January 3, 1973, sustained that contention on the basis of Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 93 S.Ct. 493, 34 L.Ed.2d 454. On appeal the Fifth Circuit reversed. It ruled that industrial smoke obscuring navigable waters constitutes a navigational hazard within the admiralty jurisdiction. In re Motorship Pacific Carrier, 489 F.2d 152, cert. den. 417 U.S. 931, 94 S.Ct. 2643, 41 L.Ed.2d 235.

The liability issue was tried before the Court on February 3-7, April 1 — 4, May 27— 29, and August 26-29, 1975. . On June 11, 1976, this Court was informed that a settlement agreement had been reached between the owner and charterer of the Pacific Carrier and Seaboard Coastline. Under the terms thereof, the Railroad agreed to assign to Pacific Carrier its claims against Union *1053 Camp and the United States acting through the Coast Guard. The assignment included the claims against Seaboard by other parties.

The settlement was subsequently consummated. Union Camp thereupon moved to dismiss the third-party action brought by the owners of the vessel on the ground that the settlement automatically released all joint tortfeasors, including Union Camp. It principally relied on Romero v. Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc., 229 F.Supp. 41 (W.D., La.), aff’d 342 F.2d 999 (5th Cir.) in which the district court dismissed a Jones Act claim because the injured seaman had settled a maritime tort action against a joint tortfeasor. 1

On March 3, 1977, this Court ruled that the assignment of such claims was valid and constituted a covenant not to sue rather than a release and therefore did not have the effect of releasing other joint tortfeasors. I based my decision primarily on Cates v. United States, 451 F.2d 411 (5th Cir.) in which Chief Judge Brown adopted what he called the “modern, sensible rule that the consequence of the release is to be determined by the intentions of the parties.” 451 F.2d at 415. The Fifth Circuit allowed the action against the government despite plaintiff’s release of a joint tortfeasor. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 342-48, 91 S.Ct. 795, 28 L.Ed.2d 77.

In the same Order I ruled that the Anti-Assignment Statute, 31 U.S.C. § 203, which voids assignments against the United States, is not applicable to actions brought under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 741 et seq. See Seaboard Fruit Co., Inc. v. United States, 73 F.Supp. 732 (S.D.N.Y.).

As stated above, Pacific Carrier has settled with all parties except Union Camp and United States Coast Guard. The bond for stipulation of value of the vessel was dissolved by Order of Court dated November 8, 1978. The limitation of liability feature of the case thus became moot.

A final evidentiary session was held on June 28-30, 1976, at which time rebuttal evidence was heard. Oral argument, briefing, preparation of proposed Findings and-Conclusions extended to early 1977. Because of my heavy workload I have been unable to spare since then the three weeks which have been devoted to the preparation of this Opinion in a case where the record runs to over 7,250 pages. Its incubus-like presence has bedeviled this Court for two years.

II.

Issues

Two questions remain before this Court for determination. They are:

1. WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT UNION CAMP; PACIFIC CARRIER, AND/OR THE UNITED STATES WERE AT FAULT.
2. WHETHER A PARTY SETTLING A CLAIM AND TAKING AN ASSIGNMENT OF ALL CLAIMS MAY RECOVER MORE THAN THE AMOUNT PAID IN SETTLEMENT.

III.

Findings of Fact

1. Oceanic Carrier, Inc. owns the Pacific Carrier which at the time of the collision was being operated by Gypsum Carrier, Inc. as bareboat charterer and owner pro hac vice. The vessel was chartered to Caribbean Steamship Company for the purpose of shipping gypsum from Halifax to Savannah.

2. The Pacific Carrier is of Liberian registry. Her overall length is 579.83 feet, and her beam is 72.18 feet. It is diesel-powered and propelled by a single right-hand screw. The bridge is located aft. The port anchor *1054 and chain had been lost in February, 1971. It was not replaced. However, the ship remained in class with the American Bureau of Shipping under the condition that the anchor be replaced as quickly as possible.

The vessel carried a full complement of twenty-seven men and nine officers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
465 F. Supp. 1050, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-gypsum-carrier-v-union-camp-corp-gasd-1979.