Lavello v. Danko

S.D. New York

Lavello v. Danko

175 F. Supp. 92, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2915

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 10, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 175 F. Supp. 92 (Lavello v. Danko) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lavello v. Danko, 175 F. Supp. 92, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2915 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

*93 DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion to overrule peremptory exceptions to a libel. The action grows out of the crash of an airplane off Block Island, which is alleged to be more than one marine league from the nearest shore of any state. The action was brought in admiralty pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act. 46 U.S.C.A. § 761 et seq. It is alleged that the death was caused solely as a result of the negligence, default and wrongful act of respondent’s decedent in the operation of the airplane, in making faulty repairs and failure to make proper inspection. The exceptions to the libel urge that the alleged negligence, or some of the acts constituting the same, are alleged to have occurred elsewhere than on the high seas and that therefore the allegations of the libel do not give rise to a cause of action within the maritime jurisdiction of this Court.

Certainly some of the allegations of the libel allege negligence over the high seas, such as the allegation that respondent’s decedent failed to operate the aircraft so as to avoid contact with the high seas.

In any event the death occurred on the high seas and “the alleged locale of the tortious act places it within the traditional tort jurisdiction of admiralty.” Wilson v. Transocean Airlines, D.C. Cal.1954, 121 F.Supp. 85, 92. *

Even if the tortious conduct of the respondent’s decedent occurred within the territorial limits of this State, if the impact of the tortious conduct took place in the air space over the high seas then this Court has jurisdiction under the Death on the High Seas Act. Noel v. Airponents, Inc., D.C.N.J.1958, 169 F.Supp. 348.

The motion to overrule the exceptions to the libel is granted. So ordered.

*

“In applying the ‘locality’ test for admiralty jurisdiction, the tort is deemed to occur, not where the wrongful act or omission has its inception, but where the impact of the act or omission produces such injury as to give rise to a cause of action.” Ibid., 121 F.Supp. at page 92.

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

*93 DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion to overrule peremptory exceptions to a libel. The action grows out of the crash of an airplane off Block Island, which is alleged to be more than one marine league from the nearest shore of any state. The action was brought in admiralty pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act. 46 U.S.C.A. § 761 et seq. It is alleged that the death was caused solely as a result of the negligence, default and wrongful act of respondent’s decedent in the operation of the airplane, in making faulty repairs and failure to make proper inspection. The exceptions to the libel urge that the alleged negligence, or some of the acts constituting the same, are alleged to have occurred elsewhere than on the high seas and that therefore the allegations of the libel do not give rise to a cause of action within the maritime jurisdiction of this Court.

Certainly some of the allegations of the libel allege negligence over the high seas, such as the allegation that respondent’s decedent failed to operate the aircraft so as to avoid contact with the high seas.

In any event the death occurred on the high seas and “the alleged locale of the tortious act places it within the traditional tort jurisdiction of admiralty.” Wilson v. Transocean Airlines, D.C. Cal.1954, 121 F.Supp. 85, 92. *

Even if the tortious conduct of the respondent’s decedent occurred within the territorial limits of this State, if the impact of the tortious conduct took place in the air space over the high seas then this Court has jurisdiction under the Death on the High Seas Act. Noel v. Airponents, Inc., D.C.N.J.1958, 169 F.Supp. 348.

The motion to overrule the exceptions to the libel is granted. So ordered.

*

“In applying the ‘locality’ test for admiralty jurisdiction, the tort is deemed to occur, not where the wrongful act or omission has its inception, but where the impact of the act or omission produces such injury as to give rise to a cause of action.” Ibid., 121 F.Supp. at page 92.

Dorothy Weinstein, of the Estate of Ralph Weinstein, Deceased v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., General Motors Corporation, and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. Thelma P. Freeman and Provident Tradesmens Bank and Trust Company, Co-Executors of the Estate of Addison B. Freeman, Jr., Deceased v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., General Motors Corporation, and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. Mary B. Grice, of the Estate of David S. Grice, Deceased v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., General Motors Corporation, and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. Diane Braff, Administratrix Ad Prosequendum and as General Administratrix of the Estate of Bernard Jay Braff, Deceased v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., General Motors Corporation, and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. Edna E. Long and Laura Manney, Administratrices of the Estate of Shirley E. Reitz, Deceased v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., General Motors Corporation, and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. Attilio E. Abate, Administrator of the Estate of Frederick N. Abate, Deceased v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., General Motors Corporation, and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. Joseph Thompson, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Letha Mae Thompson, Deceased v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., General Motors Corporation, and Lockheed Aircraft, Corporation

316 F.2d 758 (Third Circuit, 1963)

Weinstein v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

316 F.2d 758 (Third Circuit, 1963)

Noel v. United Aircraft Corp.

204 F. Supp. 929 (D. Delaware, 1962)

Pearson v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.

199 F. Supp. 538 (S.D. New York, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. Supp. 92, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lavello-v-danko-nysd-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack