Opinion ID: 2400452
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Farrell Lines v. Chesapeake

Text: Farrell Lines contends that, under maritime law and the Supreme Court's decision in Ryan Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133 (1956), it is entitled to be indemnified by Chesapeake for expenses incurred in defending its case against Pine Street, based upon Chesapeake's breach of its warranty to Farrell Lines to perform in a workmanlike manner. Chesapeake, on the other hand, claims that Farrell Lines is not entitled to indemnity because Chesapeake's negligence occurred while it was acting as terminal operator and agent for the consignee of the antimony, not as stevedore or agent for Farrell Lines. Chesapeake argues that its liability to Farrell Lines is controlled by Maryland law which, it is asserted, does not recognize a right of indemnity in these circumstances. In light of the fact that this case will be remanded for a new trial, and the evidence and findings in the new trial with respect to the negligence of both Farrell Lines and Chesapeake may well be different, we believe that it would be premature to discuss this issue. The evidence and findings upon re-trial may well have a bearing on the determination of the indemnity issue. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Costs to be paid as follows: one-third by Pine Street Trading Corp.; one-third by Chesapeake Operating Company; and one-third by Farrell Lines, Inc.