Skip to main content
· 7/9/1919

Alaska Pacific Steamship Co. v. Sperry Flour Co.

Citations

  • 107 Wash. 545

Syllabus

<p>Indemnity (9)—Judgment (208)—Concltjsiveness, as Against Indemnitor, oe Former Adjudication Against Indemnitee. Where a flour company and a steamship company were jointly sued for injuries ■ sustained by a stevedore in a fall from a defective plank at the flour company’s dock, a nonsuit in favor of the flour company, because of plaintiff’s failure to show its control or responsibility for the plank in question, is not conclusive or res judicata as to the steamship company as to that fact, as between it and the flour company in the steamship company’s subsequent action to recover over from the flour company on the latter’s contract to furnish safe appliances while the ship was loading at the dock; since they were not adversaries in the former suit, and the steamship company had no control over plaintiff’s presentation of his case. (Seattle v. Ericlcson, 99 Wash. 543, overruled.)</p> <p>Negligence (6)—Use oe Premises—Invitation. A flour company maintaining docks and approaches for the use of ships loading flour owes the positive duty to keep its premises safe for the use of servants of others expected to use it.</p> <p>Indemnity (7-2)—Joint Tort-Feasors. A flour company maintaining a dock and dolphins for the use of vessels loading flour owes the primary duty of keeping the same and their approaches reasonably safe; but where, from the nature of a dolphin and its tendency to sway with the surging of the ship, a plank approach to it was liable to become insecure, the steamship company’s- failure to inspect it before ordering a stevedore to use it might be an independent act of negligence on its part, making it a joint tort-feasor with the flour company, as to an injury sustained by a stevedore in attempting to use the plank, so that there could be no recovery over from the flour company by the steamship company after paying judgment recovered for the personal injuries sustained.</p> <p>Same (9)—-Judgment (208)—■ Conclusiveness, as Against Indemnitor, oe Former Adjud

Judges: Tolman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.