Preview

ASME vs. Hydrolevel Case

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
366 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
ASME vs. Hydrolevel Case
Shino Yato
ASME vs. Hydrolevel Case
Proposal
In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court, was held that American Society of Mechanical Engineers (a nonprofit association) was responsible for treble damages under the Sherman Act. In 1971, the engineering firm of McDonnell and Miller requested an interpretation of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code from the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes Committee. Although initially undisclosed by them, McDonnell and Miller used the response to their inquiry to show that a boiler control device competitor, the Hydrolevel Corp., was selling a device not in compliance with the ASME BPV Code.
Unknown to ASME 's leadership, T.R. Hardin, chairman of the ASME committee and employee of the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company in Connecticut, wrote the original response to McDonnell and Miller 's inquiry. McDonnell and Miller salesmen used ASME’s interpretation as proof of Hydrolevel 's disagreement. Subsequently, Hydrolevel never acquired sufficient market penetration for sustaining business, and eventually went bankrupt.
As a result, Hydrolevel sued McDonnell and Miller, the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company and ASME on the basis of loss of trade. The Hydrolevel’s laywers argued that two ASME subcommittee members acted not only in the self-interest of their companies, but also in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
McDonnell and Miller and the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company settled out of court, but the litigation against ASME went all the way to the Supreme Court where, on a 6-3 decision, the Court found in favor of Hydrolevel on the liability issue. Following a damages retrial, the case was settled for $4.75 million in favor of Hydrolevel.
The important lesson from the ASME vs. Hydrolevel case is that each individual 's actions has an influence on the profession as a whole. Therefore, engineers must be fully aware of their roles as professionals.

References
"FindLaw



References: "FindLaw | Cases and Codes." FindLaw | Cases and Codes. N.p., 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. OpenJurist. "OpenJurist." 635 F2d 118 Hydrolevel Corporation v. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Inc. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. Texas A&M University. "ASME vs Hydrolevel." ENGINEERING.com. The Department of Philosophy and Department of Mechanical Engineering, 13 Oct. 2006. Web. 19 Feb. 2013

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Facts: On March 20, 1982, plaintiff Marybeth Atkins sustained serious injuries while skiing at Jimmy Peak Ski Resort. On December 5, 1984 plaintiff Marybeth Atkins sued defendant Jimmy Peak. Plaintiff alleged that her injuries were caused by defective ski equipment she had rented from the rental facility on the premises. She further alleged that the defendant failed to inspect ski equipment and the failure amounted to negligence and breach of contract. An amended complaint was filed on February 14, 1986, the plaintiff added counts that the defendant had breached warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The defendant moved for summary judgment which was granted by a judge of the Superior Court on the ground that the plaintiff’s action was barred by the statute of limitations. The case was transferred to Massachusetts’s Supreme Court by its own motion.…

    • 370 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    A Civil Action Analysis

    • 849 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Jonathan Harr's nonfiction narrative, A Civil Action, tells the events, in vivid detail, that led to the nine year long case of Anderson v. Cryovac. Lawsuit which was brought about through Jan Schichtman, the lawyer representing eight families living in Woburn, M.A., against W.R Grace and Beatrice Foods. The lawsuit claimed that the two companies were to be held liable for causing illnesses and deaths to members of these families after contaminating their water supply with trichloroethylene (TCE.)…

    • 849 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Navy performed limited background checks on Thompson and Salvatore Carabetta when project was granted. Shaw Group and Carabetta were feuding during project, company rejected warnings from whistle-blower John Jack, costs escalated and components of houses were downgraded without Navy approval. Navy couldn't get documentation out of American Eagle, Navy didn't act quickly on information from John Jack.…

    • 1781 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Unit 8 Legal Research

    • 541 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Co. V. Firemen’s Ins. Of Newark, 236 N.J.Super. 473, 566 A.2d 227 (1989)…

    • 541 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Riley vs Standard Oil

    • 310 Words
    • 2 Pages

    NO – The court affirmed the 1st Appellatte Court’s decision stating Standard Oil of New Your was not liable based on Million acting outside the scope of employment.…

    • 310 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Business Law

    • 2266 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v Bear Stearns & Co. (retrieved November 4, 2011) http://scocal.stanford.edu…

    • 2266 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Robbins Collections School of Law University of California at Berkley. (n.d.). The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Retrieved from http://www.berkley.edu…

    • 1862 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    Riordan Mfg. Legal - Overview. (2003, 2004, 2006). Retrieved April 25, 2010, from Riordan Mfg.: https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/aapd/cist/vop/Business/Riordan/Legal/RiordanLegal001.htm…

    • 2807 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    United States v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500, 974 F. Supp. 1367 (D. Kan. 1997). Retrieved August…

    • 1879 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    hoover motor express

    • 437 Words
    • 2 Pages

    FACTS: The Hoover Motor Express Company delivered a written offer to purchase certain real estate to the Clements Paper Company on November 19, 1949. Williams, who is a vice president at Clements, had been authorized in December to accept Hoover’s offer, yet he did not contact Hoover by telephone until January 13, 1950 because he believed he would accept the offer unless he could negotiate a better deal. Clements made a written acceptance of Hoover’s offer on January 20, 1950. Hoover refused to perform, claiming that the offer was revoked on January 13. Clements stated that Hoover did not revoke its offer on January 13. Hoover claimed that Clements accepted Hoover’s offer on January 20. Clements filed suit against Hoover for breach of contract and asked the trial court for specific performance or damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Clements in holding that Hoover’s offer had not been revoked on January 13. Hoover appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree. Hoover petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.…

    • 437 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    As and end result Hill and Morgan were found guilty which lead to the disband of the company.…

    • 74 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Winters US Case Brief

    • 322 Words
    • 1 Page

    The suit was brought by the U.S. to restrain appellants and others from constructing or maintaining dams or reservoirs on the Milk River in the State of Montana, or in any manner preventing the water of the river or its tributaries from flowing to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. The defendant had built substantial dams and reservoirs, and diverted the waters from its channel, which had deprived downstream use. Alleged by the appellant, it was supposed to be the irreparable injury of the U.S. for which there is no adequate remedy at law. The defendant claimed that they had their diversions without having notice of any claim made by the United States and had spent over 100,000 dollars on the construction.…

    • 322 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Culpepper V. Weihrauch KG

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Contributory Negligence Summary in Culpepper v. Weihrauch KG, ETC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, M.D. ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION…

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Case Brief

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Procedures: The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the claims presented Stoneridge Investment Partners against Scientific-Atlanta, stating that they were “aiders and abettors” of the fraud as opposed to “primary violators.” This concluded the District Court decision in favor of the defendant. In return, the plaintiff then appealed the case to be reviewed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.…

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    After a mass of conflicting case law, notably the challenge to concurrent liability in contract and tort posed by the banking case, Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank (1986), it is now settled that a claimant may seek compensation for economic loss caused through the…

    • 2812 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays