Orion Shipping and Trading Company, a Corporation, and Pacific Cargo Carriers Corporation v. United States

The two corporate appellants, hereafter Orion, appeal from the dismissal of a third party complaint filed in a suit at common law. The complaint was filed by one Basnight, a seaman on Orion’s Steamship Seacoronet while in dock at Pier 2, in Pusan, Korea, where he was injured by the unseaworthiness of the vessel, exposing him to the fumes of chlorine gas which were negligently allowed to escape from the containers during their loading. Basnight could have sued in admiralty but he chose to sue at common law, as private persons and corporations are permitted. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 85, 88 , 66 S.Ct. 872 , 90 L.Ed. 1099 . His case was tried by a jury, a verdict rendered for him which Orion accepted and paid.

Orion’s third party complaint states a claim on which Orion asserts that it is entitled to sue the United States under both “Federal Tort Claims Act, Title IV, Chapter 753 — Public Law 601— Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.A. P. 741-752, and other applicable Federal Statutes.”

It is obvious that Orion cannot recover under the Tort Claims Act since 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (k) excepts from the act “any claim arising in a…

I concur in all that is said in the foregoing opinion. I am of the opinion that the district court had jurisdiction for a further reason. Even if it were assumed *758 that it was improper to file a third party complaint in the original plaintiff’s law action, yet plainly enough the pleading filed stated a cause of action under the Suits in Admiralty Act. Assuming the lack of authority to treat this as a third-party complaint in the law action, yet its defects were merely defects in form. Conceding that it was filed under the wrong number, and called by the wrong name, it was nevertheless filed in a court which had jurisdiction to entertain a suit in admiralty under the Act. The United States appeared and answered. The mere fact that it was called a “complaint” instead of a “libel” should make no difference in substance to a court having admiralty jurisdiction. “For the ancient admiralty teaching is that, ‘The rules of pleading in the admiralty are exceedingly simple and free from technical requirements.’ ” Archawski v. Hanioti, 350 U.S. 532, 534 , 76 S.Ct. 617, 620 , 100 L.Ed. 676 . And see Admiralty Rule 44, construed in The Cleona, D.C., 37 F.2d 599, 600 , as a means “to adopt…

247 F.2d 755 ORION SHIPPING and TRADING COMPANY, a corporation, and Pacific Cargo Carriers Corporation, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellees. No. 15264. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. July 25, 1957. Bogle, Bogle & Gates, Robert V. Holland, Seattle, Wash., for appellant. George Cochran Doub, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leavenworth Colby, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Keith Ferguson, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Graydon S. Staring, Attorney, Department of Justice, San Francisco, Cal., Charles P. Moriarty, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee. Before DENMAN, POPE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges. DENMAN, Circuit Judge. 1 The two corporate appellants, hereafter Orion, appeal from the dismissal of a third party complaint filed in a suit at common law. The complaint was filed by one Basnight, a seaman on Orion's Steamship Seacoronet while in dock at Pier 2, in Pusan, Korea, where he was injured by the unseaworthiness of the vessel, exposing him to the fumes of chlorine gas which were negligently allowed to escape from the containers during their loading. Basnight could have sued in admiralty but he chose to sue at common law, as private persons and corporations are…