IN RE: Multidistrict Litigation Arising From the Silver Bridge Disaster

Case MDL No. 39 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 7
i JUDICIAL PANEL 0M PER Co
MULTIDISTRICT. LITIGATION Peale 0
APR 0670 BoE
THE JUDToIAL PANEL PATRICIA D. [CARD oo oo	SLERK OEI :
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Lf OF THE BANEL
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ARISING ) a.
FROM THE SILVER BRIDGE DISASTER ) DOCKET NO. 39 pean Co
OPINION AND ORDER SS
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Co
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON,* WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH Lo
S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL Co
PER CURIAM EE
On December 15, 1967, at the height of the evening rush IER EE
hour, the Silver Bridge spanning the Ohio River at Point a. Co .
Pleasant, West Virginia collapsed. As a result, thirty-one oo Sn
cars fell into the river and forty-six persons were killed. : oo
The forty-eight actions listed on Schedule A result from this oo
tragedy. The bridge was allegedly fabricated by the American } :
Bridge Division of the United States Steel Corporation. The oo
J.E. Greiner Company allegedly participated in the design of Ti So1/ — SR
the bridge as consulting engineers. They are both defendants :
in nearly all of the actions. The United States and the
* Although Judge Robson did not attend the hearing he has
with the consent of all parties participated in this decision. a.
1/ The J.E. Greiner Company is apparently a dissolved Maryland Se _ .
corporation and its successors have also been named as defendants
in many of these actions.
* .

Case MDL No. 39 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	2 of 7
® C2
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 Fairland, Indiana Air Disaster Litigation, ____F.Supp.__
(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
@ 2/ 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.

Case MDL No. 39 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	3 of 7
® -.3 -
added responsibility for conducting coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in this rather large multidistrict litiga-
tion. 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 consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings.
At the hearing there was also some mention of the possible
transfer of some of these actions under 28 U.S.C. §l404(a). As
in multidistrict air disaster litigation, transfer under §1404(a)
is often desirable but the transfer of these actions for pre-
trial proceedings under §1407 does not preclude later considera-
® tion by the appropriate court of transfer under §l404 (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 pre-
trial 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.

Case MDL No. 39 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 7
® DOCKET NO. 39 SCHEDULE A
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Margaret Mae Cantrell, etc. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. 68-337
John E. Halliday, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 69-328
Noralyn A. Head, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 69-329
Patricia K. Sims, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 69-330
B. K. Higley, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 69-331
Hazel Cremeens, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 69-332
Robert E. Lee, etc. v. United States Civil Action
® Steel Corp., et al. No. 69-333
Noel F. Moore, etc, v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 69-334
Margaret Mae Cantrell, etc. v. United Civil Action
States of America No. 69-340
Dexter Marie Counts, etc. v. United States Civil Action
of America No. 69-341
Robert E. Pullen, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 69-352
Dexter Marie Counts, etc. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. 69-2
Esther E. Reynolds, etc. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. 69-255
Harold L. Casey, etc. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. 69-350
Louis Leslie Sturgeon, etc. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. 69-384

Case MDL No. 39 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 5 of 7
DOCKET NO. 39 - 2 - SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Transport Indemnity Co., et al. v. United Civil Action
States Steel Corp., et al. No. 21512
Charles R, Fielder v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 21519
Herbert P. Smith, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 21520
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mary Ethel Rouse, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2448
Nancy Bennett, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2449
Clara Towe, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2450

Case MDL No. 39 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 6 of 7
@® DOCKET NO. 39 - 3 - SCHEDULE A
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA (CONTINUED)
Judy Mabe, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2451
Marie L. Cundiff, etc. v. United Stakes Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2452
Denny Armstrong, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2459
Paul A. Scott v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2490
George W. Byus, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2597
George Turner v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2598
Bonnie German, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
® Corp., et al. No. 2599William Frederick White, etc. v. United Civil Action
States Steel Corp., et al. No. 2600
Paul M. Hayman v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2601
Francis Owen Nunn, Jr. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2602
Frank Wamsley Vv. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2603
Samuel Franklin Ellis, Sr. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2604
William M. Edmondson v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2605
Rosalie McDade, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2660
Lydia L. Sanders, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2661

Case MDL No. 39 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 7 of 7
® DOCKET NO. 39 - 4 - SCHEDULE A
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA (CONTINUED)
William N. Needham v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2671
McLean Trucking Co. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2672
Hennis Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2673
Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2674
Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2675
Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2676
Lois Ann Harper, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
® Corp., et al. No. 2677Herbert P. Smith, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2678
Herbert P. Smith, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2679
Nancy Bennett, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2680
Charles R. Fielder, etc. v. United States Steel Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 2681
E. M. Pete Johnson, etc. v. United States Civil Action
Steel Corp., et al. No. 2689