Maritime Overseas Corporation v. United States
MARITIME OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:
The Government appeals from a judgment in favor of Maritime Overseas Corporation [“Maritime”] holding the Government liable as an indemnitor for a wrongful death action brought against Maritime by the survivors of one of its seaman employees. Liability in the indemnity action, as in the underlying wrongful death claim, was based on the alleged negligent treatment afforded the employee by Navy doctors pri- or to his death.
The pivotal question in this case is whether the Government acted negligently, and, if so, whether that negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by Maritime’s employee.
1
Maritime, as would-be indemnitee, must establish the Govern *1261 ment’s negligence as a condition of its own recovery.
California Stevedore & Ballast Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp., 291 F.2d 252 (9th Cir. 1961);
see Garrett v. United States Lines, Inc., 574 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1978). The showing a claimant of indemnity must make with respect to the potential indemnitor’s liability must be distinguished from the showing required of the claimant with respect to its own liability to the injured third party.
See California Stevedore & Ballast Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp., supra; Parfait v. Jahncke Service Inc., 484 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, Home Indem. Co. v. Ruppel; Ruppel v. Travelers Indem. Co., 415 U.S. 957 , 94 S.Ct. 1485 , 39 L.Ed.2d 572 (1974). The trial court appeared to proceed on the assumption that the only issue was whether there was a colorable claim made against Maritime, on which it had tendered the defense to the Government. Although that showing was sufficient to demonstrate Maritime’s own liability, it provided insufficient grounds for imposing liability on the Government as an indemnitor. The Government is entitled to try the question of its own fault.
The case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
1
.
We need not now consider the scope of the United States’ duty under its implied contract with Maritime.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Vaughn v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
- Margaret E. Vaughn, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bernice W. Vaughn, Jr., Deceased Margaret E. Vaughn v. Farrell Lines, Inc., for Itself, and as Successor to American Export Lines, Inc., Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Successor to Gulf Oil Corporation, Isco, Inc., Successor to States Marine Lines, Keystone Shipping Company, Amoco Oil Company, Texaco, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Marine Transport Lines, Inc., Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Lykes Brothers Steamship Company, Inc., United Brands Company, Successor to United Fruit Company, a New Jersey Corporation Trinidad Corporation v. Foster Wheeler Corporation and Armstrong Contract & Supply, Inc.
- Dawn Rannals v. Diamond Jo Casino
- Chisholm v. UHP Projects, Inc.
- Vaughn v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc.
- Masherah v. Dettloff
Most recent
- Dawn Rannals v. Diamond Jo Casino
- Meitus v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
- Phillip A. Chisholm v. Uhp Projects, Incorporated, & Third Party v. Sealift, Incorporated Ultra Maritime, Incorporated Wilco Supply, Incorporated Spir Star, Incorporated Kutting, Incorporated Spir Star Druckschlauche Gmbh, Third Party
- Chisholm v. UHP Projects, Inc.
- Masherah v. Dettloff
- United States v. Jorge Vargas Aguilar
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.