UPON PROPER STIPULATION U.S. DISTRICT COURT SHOULD DISSOLVE INJUNCTION IN LIMITATION PROCEEDING.
Riverway Harbor Service, St. Louis, Inc., In the matter ofthe complaint of; as owners and/or operators of; in a cause of action forexoneration from or limitation of liability - Bucyrus Erie 30-B Super CraneBarge - M/V Arkie II, Petitioner-Appellee, Fredrick Webber, Claimant-Appellant,Cargo Carriers, a Division of Cargill Marine & Terminal, Inc., Claimant,Riverway Harbor Service, St. Louis, Inc., - M/V Arkie II - Bucyrus Erie 30-BSuper Crane, Third Party Plaintiff, v. Bridge & Crane Inspection, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-1415
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18728
November 16, 2000, Submitted
August 20, 2001, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The claimant, an individual, appealed the final order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri following the denial of his motion to dissolve a permanent injunction issued by the district court prohibiting state court proceedings in an admiralty tort action against defendant harbor service.
OVERVIEW: The claimant was involved in an accident at the harbor service in which a crane malfunctioned and struck the claimant, knocking him into the water. The harbor service filed a complaint invoking admiralty jurisdiction in federal court pursuant to the Limitation of Vessel Owners Liability Act, 46 U.S.C.S. ßß 181-196, seeking exoneration or limitation of liability for the accident. The same day, the claimant filed in state court, seeking damages for personal injury under 46 U.S.C.S. ß 688(a). As required by the injunction, the claimant filed a claim in district court in the limitation proceeding. The claimant moved to dissolve the federal court injunction. The district court denied his initial motion to dissolve and held that his stipulations were inadequate. The claimant filed an amended motion to dissolve, including a supplemental stipulation in conformity with the district court's order. The district court again refused to dissolve the injunction in a final order. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded because the claimant's stipulations fulfilled the single-claimant exception permitting limitation of liability and thereby satisfied the limitation statute's requirements.
OUTCOME: The order was reversed and remanded.
