They also dredged elsewhere in 1972 (just to show they existed)
Note the "Beaver" was a "bucket dredge"
458 F.2d 1186
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Washington corporation, et
al., Appellants,
v.
UMPQUA RIVER NAVIGATION COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Appellee.
No. 25913.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
April 7, 1972.
Nathan J. Heath (argued) of Gray, Fredrickson & Heath, Portland, Or., for appellant.
Kenneth E. Roberts (argued), Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., Ben Lombard, Jr., of Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey & Williamson, Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before BARNES and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and McNICHOLS, District Judge.*
KILKENNY, Circuit Judge:
Advertisement
1
In the lower court, appellants sought indemnification from appellee for injuries sustained by General's employee during dredging operations conducted by it as general contractor, with appellee as a subcontractor. The employee's judgment against General was affirmed by the Oregon Supreme Court in Kinney v. General Construction Co., 248 Or. 500, 435 P.2d 297 (1967). The lower court denied indemnification. We affirm.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2
A brief outline of the facts is in order.1 General is a contractor in marine construction, as is appellee. It contracted with the Army Corps of Engineers to excavate, or dredge, shotrock from the Columbia River Channel. Later, appellee, as subcontractor, agreed to furnish the floating bucket dredge BEAVER with a two-man crew to perform the dredging services. General, with its tug, picked up the BEAVER, located it on the project and provided a barge into which the rock was dumped. Appellee, as agreed, provided two men to operate the dredge. However, under the contract, the over-all supervision of the project, including the loading and the dumping of the barge, was the obligation of General.
Poll