Document: 342 U.S. 29 72 S.Ct. 12 96 L.Ed. 31 GARDNERv.PANAMA R. CO. No. 22. Argued Oct. 11, 1951. Decided Nov. 5, Mr. Eugene Eisenmann, New York City, for petitioner. Thomas J. Maginnis, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 This suit in admiralty, a libel personam brought the District Court Canal Zone, is petitioner's third attempt to secure damages injuries alleged have been sustained on December 3, 1947, while passenger board respondent's steamship Panama. 2 Petitioner instituted her first action against respondent April 10, 1948. complaint was dismissed October 7, 1948, after company successfully maintained that only remedy sue United States under Federal Tort Claims Act; respondent, whose entire stock owned by States, 'federal agency' within meaning of Act.1 3 An filed November 29, 1948—still one-year period limitation—was before reaching trial merits, Congress had amended, July 16, 1949, Act, excluding from its coverage 'Any claim arising activities Panama Railroad Company.'2 4 Five days later, 19, petitioner commenced present suit. Respondent pleaded laches theory that, since Zone statute limitations3 now barred any at law, should bar admiralty. The this defense, and entered judgment Appeals affirmed ground, 185 F.2d 730. We granted certiorari, 341 934, 71 854. 5 Though existence question primarily addressed discretion court, matter not be determined merely reference mechanical application limitations. equities parties must considered as well. Where there has no inexcusable delay seeking where prejudice defendant ensued mere passage time, relief. Key 1872, 14 Wall. 653, 20 896; Southern Pacific Co. v. Bogert, 1919, 250 483, 39 533, 63 1099; Holmberg Armbrecht, 1946, 327 392, 66 582, 90 743; see McGrath Co., Cir., 1924, 298 F. 303, 304. 6 diligently sought redress case. Twice year following she second abated through an Act fault own. There showing position suffered fact yet proceeded merits. 7 contends event, decision below because time cause company. It injury, liable, Public Law 172, which renders amenable suit, operate retroactively transfer preexisting liability Government 8 reject view. subject Minnix, 1922, 282 47, inclusion scope meant responsible torts. Without interval, incorporation, until those injured were never left without means redress. would us attribute intent create inequitable hiatus. Despite stated 'purpose' 172 simply 'exclude claims * Company provisions' Act,4 hold cut off, summarily, all who sued torts committed during preceding enactment 172. 9 In our view, amendment permitted outstanding upon enforced prompt proceedings directly followed course. interpretation seem statement company's president when he endorsed securing exclusion said though embraced 'claims Company,' provisions well designed expedite such injuries, enact 'to continue unimpaired amenability ordinary course.'5 10 reversed remanded further proceedings. 11 Reversed. Justice MINTON took part consideration or 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671, 2679, U.S.C.A. 2679. 81st Cong., 1st Sess., Stat. 444, § 2680(m), 2680(m). Code, 1934, Tit. 4, 87(3). H.R.Rep.No.830, Sess.; S.Rep.No.167, Id. supra, 4; 4.

Category: 8