All Courts |
Federal Courts |
Other Federal Courts |
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
1970-04 |
In Re Multidistrict Litigation Arising From the SILVER BRIDGE DISASTER , 311 F. Supp. 1345 ( 1970 )
Menu:
-
311 F.Supp. 1345 (1970) In re Multidistrict Litigation Arising From the SILVER BRIDGE DISASTER.
No. 39. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
April 20, 1970. Before ALFRED P. MURRAH, Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON,[*] WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, and STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel.
OPINION AND ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On December 15, 1967, at the height of the evening rush hour, the Silver Bridge spanning the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West Virginia collapsed. As a result, thirty-one cars fell into the river and forty-six persons were killed. The forty-eight actions listed on Schedule A result from this tragedy. The bridge was allegedly fabricated by the American Bridge Division of the United States Steel Corporation. The J. E. Greiner Company allegedly participated in the design of the bridge as consulting engineers. They are both defendants[1] in nearly all of the actions. The United States and the State of Ohio[2] are defendants in certain of the actions pending in the Southern District of Ohio.
It is manifest that this multidistrict litigation involves substantial common questions of fact relating to liability and in this regard it is not unlike the typical air disaster litigation which frequently comes before the Panel. See In re Mid-Air Collision Fairland, Indiana, 309 F. Supp. 621 (JPML February 10, 1970) and cases cited therein. The dispute is therefore not whether these actions should be transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to § 1407 but rather to which district they should be transferred.
The choice is not altogether an easy one for the parties and witnesses reside on both sides of the Ohio River. Since a clear majority of the actions are now pending in the Southern District of West Virginia and most parties prefer transfer of the related actions to that district we have concluded that the Southern District of West Virginia would be the most convenient district.
*1346 At the hearing on the order to show cause, several attorneys expressed concern about the heavy dockets in both districts and we would be most reluctant to add to the burden of either Judge Christie or Judge Kinneary by giving either the added responsibility for conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in this rather large multidistrict litigation. With the typically fine cooperation of all involved we have arranged for the assignment of Judge Frank A. Kaufman of the District of Maryland to the Southern District of West Virginia for the purpose of conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
At the hearing there was also some mention of the possible transfer of some of these actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). As in multidistrict air disaster litigation, transfer under § 1404(a) is often desirable but the transfer of these actions for pretrial proceedings under § 1407 does not preclude later consideration by the appropriate court of transfer under § 1404(a). In re Hendersonville, North Carolina Air Disaster Litigation, 297 F.Supp. 1039 (JPML 1969) and In re Falls City, Nebraska Air Disaster Litigation, 298 F.Supp. 1323 (JPML 1969). See also In re Grain Shipment Litigation, 300 F.Supp. 1402 (JPML 1969).
It is therefore ordered that the actions listed on Schedule A pending in the Southern District of Ohio and the District of Maryland be and the same are hereby transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the related actions already pending in that district and with the written consent of that court filed herein, all such actions are hereby assigned to the Honorable Frank A. Kaufman.
SCHEDULE A Southern District of Ohio Margaret Mae Cantrell, etc. v. United States of Civil Action America, et al. No. 68-337 John E. Halliday, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 69-328 Noralyn A. Head, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 69-329 Patricia K. Sims, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 69-330 B. K. Higley, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 69-331 Hazel Cremeens, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 69-332 Robert E. Lee, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 69-333 Noel F. Moore, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 69-334 Margaret Mae Cantrell, etc. v. United States of Civil Action America No. 69-340 Dexter Marie Counts, etc. v. United States of America Civil Action No. 69-341 Robert E. Pullen, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 69-352
*1347 Dexter Marie Counts, etc. v. United States of America, Civil Action et al. No. 69-2 Esther E. Reynolds, etc. v. United States of America, Civil Action et al. No. 69-255 Harold L. Casey, etc. v. United States of America, Civil Action et al. No. 69-350 Louis Leslie Sturgeon, etc. v. United States of Civil Action America, et al. No. 69-384 District of Maryland Transport Indemnity Co., et al. v. United States Civil Action Steel Corp., et al. No. 21512 Charles R. Fielder v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 21519 Herbert P. Smith, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 21520 Southern District of West Virginia Mary Ethel Rouse, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2448 Nancy Bennett, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2449 Clara Towe, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2450 Judy Mabe, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2451 Marie L. Cundiff, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2452 Denny Armstrong, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2459 Paul A. Scott v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2490 George W. Byus, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2597 George Turner v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2598 Bonnie German, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2599 William Frederick White, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action Corp., et al. No. 2600 Paul M. Hayman v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2601 Francis Owen Nunn, Jr. v. United States Steel Civil Action Corp., et al. No. 2602 Frank Wamsley v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2603 Samuel Franklin Ellis, Sr. v. United States Steel Civil Action Corp., et al. No. 2604
*1348 William M. Edmondson v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2605 Rosalie McDade, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2660 Lydia L. Sanders, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2661 William N. Needham v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2671 McLean Trucking Co. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2672 Hennis Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States Steel Civil Action Corp., et al. No. 2673 Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2674 Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2675 Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2676 Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2677 Herbert P. Smith, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2678 Herbert P. Smith, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2679 Nancy Bennett, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2680 Charles R. Fielder, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2681 E. M. Pete Johnson, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., Civil Action et al. No. 2689
NOTES
[*] Although Judge Robson did not attend the hearing he has with the consent of all parties participated in this decision.
[1] The J. E. Greiner Company is apparently a dissolved Maryland corporation and its successors have also been named as defendants in many of these actions.
[2] The State of Ohio has been dismissed from all but one of the actions in which it was named as a defendant and it was never served in that action.
Document Info
Docket Number: 39
Citation Numbers: 311 F. Supp. 1345, 1970 A.M.C. 1752, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12020
Judges: Murrah, Wisdom, Weinfeld, Robson, Becker, Lord, Weigel
Filed Date: 4/20/1970
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024