Case ID: f-supp_311/html/1345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
    
      
       Although Judge Robson did not attend the hearing he has with the consent of all parties participated in this decision.
    
   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 in nearly all of the actions. The United States and the State of Ohio 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 MidAir Collision Fairland, Indiana, 309 F.S.upp. 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.

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 America, et al. Civil Action No. 68-337

John E. Halliday, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 69-328

Noralyn A. Head, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 69-329

Patricia K. Sims, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action 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., et al. Civil Action No. 69-332

Robert E. Lee, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 69-333

Noel F. Moore, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 69-334

Margaret Mae Cantrell, etc. v. United States of America Civil Action 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., et al. Civil Action No. 69-352

Dexter Marie Counts, etc. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. 69-2

Esther E. Reynolds, etc. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. 69-255

Harold L. Casey, etc. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. 69-350

Louis Leslie Sturgeon, etc. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. 69-384

District of Maryland

Transport Indemnity Co., et al. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 21512

Charles R. Fielder v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 21519

Herbert P. Smith, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 21520

Southern District of West Virginia

Mary Ethel Rouse, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2448

Nancy Bennett, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action 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., et al. Civil Action No. 2452

Denny Armstrong, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action 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., et al. Civil Action No. 2597

George Turner v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2598

Bonnie German, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2599

William Frederick White, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2600

Paul M. Hayman v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2601

Francis Owen Nunn, Jr. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2602

Frank Wamsley v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2603

Samuel Franklin Ellis, Sr. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2604

William M. Edmondson v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2605

Rosalie McDade, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2660

Lydia L. Sanders, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2661

William N. Needham v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2671

McLean Trucking Co. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2672

Hennis Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2673

Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2674

Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2675

Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2676

Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2677

Herbert P. Smith, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2678

Herbert P. Smith, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2679

Nancy Bennett, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2680

Charles R. Fielder, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2681

E. M. Pete Johnson, etc. v. United States Steel Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 2689 
      
      . 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.
     
      
      . 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.