Erickson v. Shamrock Towing Co.

Decision Date21 July 1948
Citation81 F. Supp. 850
PartiesERICKSON v. SHAMROCK TOWING CO., Inc.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Nathan Baker, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Alexander & Ash, of New York City, for defendant.

BONDY, District Judge.

Defendant moves to dismiss the first cause of action solely on the ground that it fails to state a claim against the defendant. The first cause of action is based upon unseaworthiness of the ship upon which the plaintiff sustained injuries. Defendant's contention is: "Since the cause of action for unseaworthiness lies against the ship, the cause of action is one essentially in rem and is not cognizable in personam at common law. As the plaintiff's claim in the first cause of action is bottomed on unseaworthiness, he can only enforce the same on the admiralty side of this Court by proceeding against the vessel in rem. Such a cause of action for unseaworthiness is not enforceable in a common law action against the owner of the ship in personam. Therefore, in the instant case, the first cause of action is not here enforceable."

In Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 88, 66 S.Ct. 872, 874, 90 L.Ed. 1099, it is stated: "It is now well settled that a right peculiar to the law of admiralty may be enforced either by a suit in admiralty or by one on the law side of the court." In German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 3 Cir., 156 F.2d 977, 979, it was held that "the injured seaman may join in the same complaint causes of action based upon negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688 and unseaworthiness under general maritime principles."

The defendant's motion accordingly is denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Pearson v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 1950
    ...977; and McCarthy v. American Eastern Corporation, 175 F.2d 724, followed by some recent decisions of lower courts; Erickson v. Shamrock Towing Co., D.C., 81 F.Supp. 850; Platt v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 82 F.Supp. 968; Borgman v. Sword Line, Sup., 81 N.Y.S.2d 445. The reasoning given for ......
  • Williams v. Tide Water Associated Oil Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 30, 1956
    ...1950, 93 F.Supp. 653; Stalker v. Southeastern Oil Delaware, Inc., D.C.D.Del. 1951, 103 F.Supp. 436; Erickson v. Shamrock Towing Co., Inc., D.C.S.D. N.Y.1948, 81 F.Supp. 850; Platt v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., D.C.N.D. Ohio 1948, 82 F.Supp. 968; Warren v. Weber & Heidenthaler, Inc., D.C.D. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT