Chelentis v. Luckenbach Co
Decision Date | 03 June 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 657,657 |
Citation | 62 L.Ed. 1171,247 U.S. 372,38 S.Ct. 501 |
Parties | CHELENTIS v. LUCKENBACH S. S. CO., Inc |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 372-373 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Silas B. Axtell and Arthur L. Burchell, both of New York City (Fayette B. Dow, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 373-377 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Peter S. Carter and William H. Carter, both of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 377-378 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In December, 1915, petitioner was employed by respondent, a Delaware corporation as fireman on board the steamship J. L. Luckenbach, which it then operated and controlled. While at sea, twenty-four hours out from New York, the port of destination, petitioner undertook to perform certain duties on deck during a heavy wind; a wave came aboard, knocked him down and broke his leg. He received due care immediately; when the vessel arrived at destination he was taken to the marine hospital, where he remained for three months; during that time it became necessary to amputate his leg. After discharge from the hospital, claiming that his injuries resulted from the negligence and an improvident order of a superior officer, he instituted a common-law action in Supreme Court, New York county, demanding full indemnity for damage sustained. The cause was removed to the United States District Court because of diverse citizenship. Counsel did not question seaworthiness of ship or her appliances, and announced that no claim was made for maintenance, cure, or wages. At conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the court directed verdict for respondent, and judgment thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 243 Fed. 536, 156 C. C. A. 234. The latter court said:
* * *
In The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175, 23 Sup. Ct. 483, 487 (47 L. Ed. 760), a libel in rem to recover damages for personal injuries to a seaman while on board and alleged to have resulted from the master's negligence, speaking through Mr. Justice Brown, we held:
'1. That the vessel and her owners are liable, in case a seaman falls sick, or is wounded, in the service of the ship, to the extent of his maintenance and cure, and to his wages, at least so long as the voyage is continued.
'2. That the vessel and her owner are, both by English and American law, liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship. Scarff v. Metcalf, 107 N. Y. 211 [13 N. E. 796, 1 Am. St. Rep. 807].
'3. That all the members of the crew, except perhaps the master, are, as between themselves, fellow servants, and hence seamen cannot recover for injuries sustained through the negligence of another member of the crew beyond the expense of their maintenance and cure.
After reference to article 1, § 8, and article 3, § 2, of the Constitution, we declared in Souther Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 215, 216, 37 Sup. Ct. 524, 528 (61 L. Ed. 1086, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900):
Concerning extent to which the general maritime law may be changed, modified or affected by state legislation, this was said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.
...S.Ct. 298; Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 1924, 264 U.S. 109, 44 S.Ct. 274, 68 L.Ed. 582; Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 1918, 247 U.S. 372, 383-384, 38 S.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171; Atlantic Transp. Co. of West Virginia v. Imbrovek, supra, 234 U.S. at pages 62-63, 34 S.Ct. at page 7......
-
Jenkins v. Roderick, Civ. A. 57-329.
...Judiciary Act of 1789. It merely permitted jury trials where the common law afforded such a remedy. See Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 384, 38 S.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171. And the common law does not afford as a remedy an action wherein plaintiff forfeits that part of his dam......
-
Garrett v. Cormack Co
...Southern Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S.Ct. 524, 61 L.Ed. 1086, L.R.A.1918C, 451, Ann.Cas.1917E, 900; Chelentis v. Luckenbach, 247 U.S. 372, 38 S.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149, 159, 40 S.Ct. 438, 439, 64 L.Ed. 834, 11 A.L.R. 1145; Carlisle Pa......
-
Lauritzen v. Larsen
...with the fellow-servant doctrine, to which this Court ascribed little, if any, of its intended effect. Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 38 S.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171. In 1920, Congress, under the title 'An Act To provide for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchan......
-
SIERACKI'S REVIVAL: SEAMAN-STATUS FOR PILOTS MAKING WAVES IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
...(citing 46 U.S.C. app [section] 688(a)). (29) The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110, 123 (1936) (citing Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 380 (30) Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 335 U.S. 426, 432 (1958); see generally The Arizona, 298 U.S. at 123; Warner v. Goltra, 293 U.S. 1......
-
Section 22.13 Generally, and the Incorporation of Federal Employers’ Liability Act
...to maintenance-and-cure along with unseaworthiness as general maritime remedies against the employer. Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372 (1918). Under the Jones Act, injured seamen may avail themselves of the ancient remedy of maintenance-and-cure and, in addition, either a Jone......