Opinion
Civil action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by accused on defendant's vessel, occurring in February, 1958. The defendant filed third-party complaint alleging that some or all of disability claimed by plaintiff was attributable to injury alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff in November, 1958, as result of negligence of third-party defendant and unseaworthiness of its vessel on which plaintiff was then employed as a seaman. The third-party defendant moved to dismiss the third-party complaint. The District Court, Thomsen, Chief Judge, held that the defendant could not bring the third-party complaint against the defendant since defendant and third-party defendant were not joint tort-feasors.
Motion granted.
Amos I. Meyers, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
John H. Skeen, Jr., and Skeen, Wilson & Coughlin, Baltimore, Md., for Compania Naviera Continental, S. A.
Southgate L. Morison and David Ross, Baltimore, Md., for Grace Lines, Inc.
THOMSEN, Chief Judge.
This is a civil action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by an accident on defendant's vessel, the S. S. Transyork, which occurred in February, 1958. The question presented by the pending motion is whether defendant can bring a third-party complaint under Rule 14(a), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., against Grace Lines, Inc., alleging that ‘ some or all of the disability claimed by plaintiff in the complaint in this action against defendant’ is attributable to an injury alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff in November, 1958, as a result of the negligence of Grace Lines, Inc., and the unseaworthiness of its vessel, the S. S. Santa Barbara, on which plaintiff was then employed as a seaman.
Rule 14(a) permits impleader only when the third-party is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him. It does not authorize impleader in such a case as this. Where the maritime law or applicable state law provides for a substantive right of contribution between joint tort-feasors, Rule 14(a) provides the procedure for its enforcement. 3 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., sec. 14.11; Russell, Poling & Co. v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 140 F.Supp. 890,1956 A.M.C. 1106. But defendant and Grace Lines, Inc., are not joint tort-feasors.
Defendant argues: ‘ Without Grace Line in the case, defendant Naviera will undoubtedly become victim of an award intended to compensate plaintiff for the total effect of his injuries. No one seriously believes that Naviera can, as a practical matter, be protected against this event by the Court's instructions.’ I do not agree that the Court's instructions are so ineffective; if they prove to be so in this case, defendant will not be without remedy. In any event, defendant's argument would not justify the Court's exceeding the authority granted by Rule 14(a).
The motion of Grace Lines, Inc., to dismiss the third-party complaint as against it is hereby granted.