International Stevedoring Co v. Haverty, No. 236
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES |
| Citation | 272 U.S. 50,71 L.Ed. 157,47 S.Ct. 19 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. v. HAVERTY |
| Docket Number | No. 236 |
| Decision Date | 18 October 1926 |
v.
HAVERTY.
Mr. Stephen V. Carey, of Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
Messrs. Mark M. Litchman and John F. Dore, both of Seattle, Wash., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action brought in a State Court seeking a common law remedy for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the respondent here, upon a vessel at dock
Page 51
in the harbor of Seattle. The plaintiff was a longshoreman engaged in stowing freight in the hold. Through the negligence of the hatch tender no warning was given that a load of freight was about to be lowered, and when the load came down the plaintiff was badly hurt. The plaintiff and the hatch tender both were employed by the defendant stevedore, the petitioner here, and the defendant asked for a ruling that they were fellow servants and that therefore the plaintiff could not recover. The Court ruled that if the failure of the hatch tender to give a signal was the proximate cause of the injury the verdict must be for the plaintiff. A verdict was found for him and a judgment on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 134 Wash. 235, 245, 235 P. 360, 238 P. 581. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 269 U. S. 549, 46 S. Ct. 119, 70 L. Ed. 406.
The petitioner argues that the case is governed by the admiralty law; that the admiralty law has taken up the common law doctrine as to fellow servants, and that by the common law the plaintiff would have no case. Whether this last proposition is true we do not decide. The petitioner cites a number of decisions of which it is enough to mention The Hoquiam, 253 F. 627, 165 C. C. A. 253, and Cassil v. United States Emergency Fleet Corporation (C. C. A.) 289 F. 774. It also refers to an intimation of this Court that whether the established doctrine be good or bad it is not open to courts to do away with it upon their personal notions of what is expedient. It is open to Congress, however, to change the rule and in our opinion it has done so. By the Act of June 5, 1920, c. 250, § 20, 41 Stat. 988, 1007 (Comp. St. § 8337a):
'Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his elelction, maintaion an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action election, maintain an action for damages at law, or extending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, a Div. of Litton Systems, Inc., No. 82-4361
...52, 34 S.Ct. 733, 58 L.Ed. 1208 (1914), and were considered "seamen" in certain other respects, International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157 (1926), they were not seamen for purposes of the "seaman" exception to the "situs" requirement. Smith & Son v. Tay......
-
Weinstein v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., No. 14023-14029.
...sustained while working on a vessel in navigable waters. A further extension was made in International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157 (1926), in which it was held that longshoremen could maintain an admiralty tort action as "seamen" under the Jones Act. T......
-
Frazie v. Orleans Dredging Co, 33030
...and not strictly construed. [182 Miss. 196] Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110, 80 L.Ed. 1075; International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 71 L.Ed. 157; Beadle v. Spencer, 298 U.S. 124, 80 L.Ed. 1082. It is perfectly apparent that the Lindberg case is no authority here against the ......
-
Holland v. Allied Structural Steel Co., Inc., No. 75-1421
...water", as their work was "a maritime service formerly rendered by the ship's crew." International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 1926, 272 U.S. 50, 52, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157, 159. However, following passage of the Longshoremen's and Harborworkers' Compensation Act, by which Congress exten......
-
Frazie v. Orleans Dredging Co, 33030
...and not strictly construed. [182 Miss. 196] Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110, 80 L.Ed. 1075; International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 71 L.Ed. 157; Beadle v. Spencer, 298 U.S. 124, 80 L.Ed. 1082. It is perfectly apparent that the Lindberg case is no authority here against the ......
-
Charlson Realty Company v. United States, No. 388-62.
...to achieve, and it is in this connection that Mr. Justice Holmes said, "words are flexible." International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 52, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157 The classic case I believe still is Rector, etc., of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 1......
-
Lucas v. " BRINKNES" SCHIFFAHRTS GES., Civ. A. No. 73-1120
...recover under that Act against the stevedore-employer for the latter's negligence. International Stevedoring Company v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157 (1926). The Jones Act provided the longshoreman with an attractive negligence remedy against his employer. The Jones Act pl......
-
Paduano v. Yamashita Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha, Civ. 13466.
...is a longshoreman, and longshoremen are entitled to the remedies of seamen under the Jones Act, International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157, and inasmuch as longshoremen are entitled to the benefits of the doctrine of unseaworthiness, Seas Shipping Co. v......
-
DETERMINING SEAMAN STATUS OF INTERMITTENT MARITIME EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE JONES ACT: NINTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN SOUTHARD.
...28 U.S.C.S. [section] 1333 (1948). (31) See, e.g., Chandris, Inc., 515 U.S. at 355. (32) Id. (33) Int'l Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 52 (34) Id.; see also Offshore Co. v. Robison, 266 F.2d 769, 774 (5th Cir. 1959). (35) Chandris Inc., 515 U.S at 355-56 citing 44 Stat. (part 2), ......