General Intermodal Logistics Corp. v. Mainstream Shipyards & Supply, Inc.

502 F. Supp. 38, 1984 A.M.C. 1213, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9475
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi
DecidedJuly 1, 1980
DocketNo. GC 76-165-S
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 502 F. Supp. 38 (General Intermodal Logistics Corp. v. Mainstream Shipyards & Supply, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Intermodal Logistics Corp. v. Mainstream Shipyards & Supply, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 38, 1984 A.M.C. 1213, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9475 (N.D. Miss. 1980).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ORMA R. SMITH, District Judge.

This action came on for trial before the court, sitting without a jury, at the United States Courthouse in Greenville, Mississippi, in the Northern District of Mississippi, on January 21, 1980. The plaintiff, General Intermodal Logistics Corporation (hereafter “Gilco”), through its counsel, announced ready for trial. The defendant, Mainstream Shipyards & Supply, Inc. (hereafter “Mainstream”), through its counsel and duly-appointed trial representative, announced ready for trial. The third-party defendant, Travelers Insurance Companies, did not appear, the third-party complaint having been previously dismissed as to said third-party defendant.

Whereupon the court heard the evidence produced by the parties; and, at the conclusion of the trial, on January 23, 1980, took the action under advisement for the release at a subsequent date of its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entry of final judgment, all as required by Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

In response to a request by the court, the parties have submitted post-trial memoranda and the action is now ripe for decision.

After a careful and detailed study and review of the pleadings, evidence, pretrial and post-trial memoranda, Gilco’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Mainstream’s proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law, as amended, the court has concluded that Gilco is entitled to recover damages of Mainstream, as a result of Mainstream’s negligence and carelessness in its failure to install oil filter elements and remove the slag from the lubrication system of the engines of the M/V Jane T, and to properly align the intermediate and tail shafts and set the foundations of both engines.

In support of this finding of liability, the court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law, as follows.

A. FINDINGS OF FACT.

1. Gilco is and was a corporation organized and existing under the law and engaged in the maritime transportation business at all times mentioned in evidence.

2. Mainstream is and was a corporation, organized and existing under the law, and at all times pertinent, operated a shipyard for the repair of commercial towboats.

3. In 1973, a corporation was formed and named General Marine Towing Company, with its offices in the City of Greenville, Mississippi, for the purpose of operating a marine transportation business. Gilco owned fifty (50%) percent of the shares of stock of General Marine Towing Company, Inc. (GMT) and James Nowell and Emory Skelton, Greenville residents, each owned twenty-five (25%) percent of the stock.

4. Gilco, prior to the formation of GMT, owned the M/V Jane T, a commercial towboat measuring 125' in length and 30' in width. Upon the formation of GMT, Gilco transferred the title of said vessel to GMT where it remained throughout the period of time during which the events mentioned in evidence occurred.

5. On or about June 13, 1974, Mainstream, following dealings with Gilco, entered into a written contract to repower and refurnish the M/V Jane T in accord[40]*40anee with certain specifications mentioned in the contract. Due to arrangements between Gilco and GMT and the division of activities between the affiliated corporations, a written contract was entered into by and between Mainstream and GMT. The signature on behalf of GMT was by one Charles R. Glenn, Vice President of Gilco, for General Marine Transport.

6. Among the work to be performed by Mainstream pursuant to said contract, was the installation of two (2) 12-567 C engines, converted to 645 E-2 units, modification of the bases to suit the new engines and reduction gears, to furnish and install two main engine lube oil priming pumps, two new intermediate shafts with bearings and fit the old couplings with the new fitted bolts, as well as furnishing and installing reduction gear oil coolers, filters and relief valves.

7. Following completion of the installation of the required units and purported compliance with the contract, Emory Skelton, at the time Vice President of GMT, was invited for a sea trial on the Mississippi River on the M/V Jane T. Several hours running in deep water revealed to Mr. Skelton a degree of vibration about which he complained, and certain minor modifications were made by Mainstream as a result. Following a sea trial in December, 1974, Mr. Skelton who lacked training in the operation of vessels executed at the request of Mainstream, a document entitled “Acceptance and Release” purporting to effectuate a release of any and all rights, claims, liens, remedies or causes of action for all damages arising from failure, if any, of Mainstream to comply with the terms of said contract.

Thereafter, due to lack of business for the M/V Jane T, which was thereafter renamed the Jane Elizabeth, the vessel was moored in Lake Ferguson until mid-May 1975, when it was moved to Memphis, Tennessee, for more economical fleeting. Approximately June 11, 1975, the M/V Jane Elizabeth, upon engaging towing contracts, proceeded upstream on the Mississippi River from Memphis, to the Ohio River, finally arriving at Cattletsburg, Kentucky. During the run to Cattletsburg, the operation of the boat was marked with problems, including excessive vibration and instances of the governor prematurely shutting off the engine. On June 18, 1975, as the result of these difficulties, Gilco summoned National Marine Service, the company which provided and installed the engines at Mainstream’s Shipyard, for assistance. Service men attended the vessel and it was discovered that oil filter elements were not installed in the canisters. Further inspection revealed that welding slag had been allowed to remain in the engines’ systems which should have been blocked and absorbed by the oil filter element. Services were performed by National Marine Service personnel, and the slag was examined and found to be the type resulting from welding, presumably in constructing the piping for the lubrication unit. The system was drained and fresh oil and filters were installed.

8. Following the service of June 18, 1975, the vessel proceeded up the Ohio River and intermittently experienced engine problems and excessive vibration and in accordance with arrangements the M/V Jane Elizabeth was drydocked at the Portsmouth, Ohio, area on or about August 28th, at which time the alignment of the intermediate and tail shafts was checked by B & Q' Machine and Repair, Inc. of Point Pleasant, West Virginia, and it was determined that the alignment and also the face and counter-bore between the tail and intermediate shafts were not true on both port and starboard. Necessary work was performed by that company to effect realignment. As a result of the original errors in the alignment by Mainstream, the port gear box was found to be high and the foundation of that engine was lowered. Furthermore, the starboard foundation required the same type of correction.

9. During the period of lay-up in dry-dock, the engines were checked by the vessel’s engineers, and found to contain serious damage as a result of the slag entering the system. National Marine Service dispatched its service engineer to the site and [41]*41it was noted that all bearings of the engines were scarred with imbedded slag or foreign material and required replacement. Various other elements of the engines also heeded replacement or repair.

10.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
502 F. Supp. 38, 1984 A.M.C. 1213, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-intermodal-logistics-corp-v-mainstream-shipyards-supply-inc-msnd-1980.