Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133, 1956 AMC 9 (1956)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. (Pan-Atlantic) (defendant) operated the cargo ship the Canton Victory. Pan-Atlantic entered into an agreement with Ryan Stevedoring Co. (Ryan) (defendant) to have Ryan perform all stevedoring operations on the vessel. Under this agreement, Ryan workers loaded the Canton Victory with large, heavy rolls of pulpboard, which each weighed approximately 3,200 pounds, in a port in South Carolina. After the Canton Victory traveled to New York, Ryan workers began unloading the cargo. One of the pulpboard rolls broke loose and severely injured a Ryan longshoreman, Frank Palazzolo (plaintiff). Evidence showed that the roll had been insufficiently secured when it was loaded by Ryan and that Pan-Atlantic had failed to discover the unsafe stowage. Palazzolo sued Pan-Atlantic in New York state court. Pan-Atlantic removed the case to federal district court and filed a third-party impleader complaint against Ryan. The district court entered a verdict of $75,000 for Palazzolo against Pan-Atlantic but dismissed Pan-Atlantic’s third-party complaint against Ryan. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Palazzolo but reversed the dismissal of the impleader complaint and directed that a judgment be ordered in that matter for Pan-Atlantic. Ryan appealed the reversal of the dismissal of the impleader suit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burton, J.)
Dissent (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.