German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation

Decision Date19 August 1946
Docket NumberNo. 9153.,9153.
Citation156 F.2d 977
PartiesGERMAN v. CARNEGIE-ILLINOIS STEEL CORPORATION.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Hymen Schlesinger, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Ira R. Hill, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, McLAUGHLIN, and O'CONNELL, Circuit Judges.

O'CONNELL, Circuit Judge.

This case presents the interesting if sometimes perplexing question of election of rights and remedies. A seaman is injured while on duty in the engine room of a river steamer. He brings an action on the law side in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, charging the shipowner with negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, and with breach of warranty of seaworthiness under general maritime principles. During the presentation of his case and upon motion by counsel for the defendant, the trial judge requires the plaintiff to "elect" as between these two causes of action. Accordingly, the plaintiff "elects" to proceed on the theory of negligence under the Jones Act. The jury brings in a verdict for the defendant. Motion for new trial is denied. We are asked to set aside the verdict and judgment entered thereon and to grant a new trial, chiefly on the ground that the "election" compelled by the trial judge was prejudicial and reversible error.

Only recently this court passed on a similar question but viewed from a different angle. In Branic v. Wheeling Steel Corporation, 3 Cir., 1945, 152 F.2d 887, 895, the plaintiff also brought an action alleging in the same complaint negligence and unseaworthiness. The defendant objected to the venue because it did not "reside" in the district, nor did it have its principal office there. The plaintiff contended that diversity of citizenship was the basis for federal jurisdiction and that consequently residence of the plaintiff was sufficient to make the venue proper. We held that where the action is based on both negligence and unseaworthiness, the objection to venue must be sustained if the defendant does not "reside" in the district or have his principal office there. But, instead of dismissing the action as the lower court had done, we ordered that the complaint be dismissed "unless within twenty days after the coming down of the mandate the plaintiff amends the complaint by eliminating therefrom the allegations of negligence on the part of the master and crew as a cause of his injuries and as a basis for his claim for relief." In so doing, Judge Maris speaking for the court stated, Branic v. Wheeling Steel Corporation, supra, 152 F.2d at page 890, "It should be pointed out, however, that if he should so amend and ultimately suffer an adverse judgment that judgment would also bar any recovery by him under the Jones Act. Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 1927, 274 U.S. 316, 47 S.Ct. 600, 71 L.Ed. 1069. On the other hand, if he elects not to amend and the present complaint is dismissed for want of proper venue the judgment, not being on the merits, will not conclude his claim. Accordingly it will not operate to bar him from enforcing his cause of action both for unseaworthiness and negligence under the Jones Act in a court having proper venue jurisdiction in either a civil action or a suit in admiralty, provided he does so before the statute of limitations runs against his claim."

It is thus clear that assuming proper venue (and no objection to venue appears herein) the injured seaman may join in the same complaint causes of action based upon negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime principles. Indeed, the failure to do so may have fatal results, as Judge Maris pointed out.

When we examine into the asserted facts of this case, the logic of the result reached becomes apparent. German, a striker-engineer, had just relieved the watch on April 15, 1944, in the engine room of the Steamer J. L. Perry which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Reynolds v. Royal Mail Lines
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 20 Diciembre 1956
    ...affirming, 3 Cir., 1945, 149 F.2d 98, 101; McCarthy v. American Eastern Corp., 3 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 724; German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., 3 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 977, 979; cf: Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 1927, 274 U.S. 316, 47 S.Ct. 600, 71 L.Ed. 1069. Fault is an ingredient o......
  • Pearson v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 3 Noviembre 1950
    ...for the Third Circuit adopted the contrary view in Branic v. Wheeling Steel Corporation, 152 F.2d 887, 890; German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 156 F.2d 977; and McCarthy v. American Eastern Corporation, 175 F.2d 724, followed by some recent decisions of lower courts; Erickson v.......
  • Williams v. Tide Water Associated Oil Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 30 Enero 1956
    ...175 F.2d 724, certiorari denied 1949, 338 U.S. 868, 70 S.Ct. 144, 94 L.Ed. 532; 50 Col.L.Rev. 114 (1950); German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., 3 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 977. 6 Sanford v. Caswell, 5 Cir., 1953, 200 F. 2d 830. 7 McGhee v. United States, 2 Cir., 1947, 165 F.2d 287, 290; Skola......
  • S. Wholesale Fibers & Recycling, Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 21 Mayo 2019
    ...consistency." Warwick, 446 So. 2d at 1024 (citing Breeding v. Massey, 378 F.2d 171, 178 (8th Cir.1967); German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 156 F.2d 977, 979 (3rd Cir.1946); E.H. Boly & Son, Inc. v. Schneider, 525 F.2d 20 (9th Cir.1975); Bernstein v. United States, 256 F.2d 697, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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