Vessel Judith Lee Rose, Inc. v. Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp.

First Circuit

Vessel Judith Lee Rose, Inc. v. Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp.

376 F.2d 415, 1968 A.M.C. 549, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6456

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1967

Docket6849

StatusPublished

This text of 376 F.2d 415 (Vessel Judith Lee Rose, Inc. v. Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vessel Judith Lee Rose, Inc. v. Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp., 376 F.2d 415, 1968 A.M.C. 549, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6456 (1st Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Vessel Judith Lee Rose, Inc., purchased a shackle for use on its fishing vessel from one Dulong, who had previously purchased the shackle from the defendant, Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp. The defendant had not manufactured the shackle, but had purchased it from a foreign manufacturer who maintained no place of business in the United States. After having been used on the plaintiff’s vessel for several years the shackle broke, permitting a part of the vessel’s rigging to fall and kill a member of the crew. Asserting unseaworthiness, the deceased crew member’s dependents recovered a substantial judgment against the plaintiff in the district court. The plaintiff thereupon instituted this action to recover over from the defendant.

It is clear from a reading of the plaintiff’s complaint that the present action is one of implied warranty. The plaintiff has stipulated that the defect in the shackle was latent, that the defendant was in no way negligent, and that the defendant made no express warranties to the plaintiff of any kind. Therefore, notwithstanding some suggestions in plaintiff’s brief that admiralty principles should be extended because, under admiralty principles, plaintiff was subject to certain liabilities without fault, nevertheless it is clear that the substantive law of Massachusetts controls. Since the plaintiff did not purchase the shackle from the defendant there is no privity between them. Under the Massachusetts cases it is well established that absence of privity bars an action for implied warranty. Sullivan v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 1960, 341 Mass. 216, 223, 168 N.E.2d 80; Carter v. Yardley & Co., Ltd., 1946, 319 Mass. 92, 96 n. 1, 64 N.E.2d 693, 164 A.L.R. 559; Pearl v. Wm. Filene’s Sons Co., 1945, 317 Mass. 529, 530-531, 58 N.E.2d 825. Accordingly, this action must fail.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Vessel Judith Lee Rose, Inc., purchased a shackle for use on its fishing vessel from one Dulong, who had previously purchased the shackle from the defendant, Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp. The defendant had not manufactured the shackle, but had purchased it from a foreign manufacturer who maintained no place of business in the United States. After having been used on the plaintiff’s vessel for several years the shackle broke, permitting a part of the vessel’s rigging to fall and kill a member of the crew. Asserting unseaworthiness, the deceased crew member’s dependents recovered a substantial judgment against the plaintiff in the district court. The plaintiff thereupon instituted this action to recover over from the defendant.

It is clear from a reading of the plaintiff’s complaint that the present action is one of implied warranty. The plaintiff has stipulated that the defect in the shackle was latent, that the defendant was in no way negligent, and that the defendant made no express warranties to the plaintiff of any kind. Therefore, notwithstanding some suggestions in plaintiff’s brief that admiralty principles should be extended because, under admiralty principles, plaintiff was subject to certain liabilities without fault, nevertheless it is clear that the substantive law of Massachusetts controls. Since the plaintiff did not purchase the shackle from the defendant there is no privity between them. Under the Massachusetts cases it is well established that absence of privity bars an action for implied warranty. Sullivan v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 1960, 341 Mass. 216, 223, 168 N.E.2d 80; Carter v. Yardley & Co., Ltd., 1946, 319 Mass. 92, 96 n. 1, 64 N.E.2d 693, 164 A.L.R. 559; Pearl v. Wm. Filene’s Sons Co., 1945, 317 Mass. 529, 530-531, 58 N.E.2d 825. Accordingly, this action must fail.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

376 F.2d 415, 1968 A.M.C. 549, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vessel-judith-lee-rose-inc-v-paulsen-webber-cordage-corp-ca1-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack