Interocean SS Co. v. Topolofsky, 10501.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 10501.,10501. |
| Parties | INTEROCEAN S. S. CO. v. TOPOLOFSKY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Russell V. Bleecker, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
S. Eldridge Sampliner, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Before SIMONS, ALLEN, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
Appellee is a seaman who was injured during a voyage and brought suit under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, charging appellant with negligence causing the injury. Appellant denied that there was any evidence of negligence on its part. The injuries resulted from an allegedly defective step on a flight of steps on appellant's ship. The step in question was held in position by being bolted on each side to uprights. It was supported by four bolts, two on each side of the step — one in the front part of the step, and the other, in the rear. Looking at the step from the front, there were, then, two front bolts, one at the right side and the other at the left side of the step, and two rear bolts. Appellee claimed that as he was going down the flight of steps, he stepped on one of them which gave way, or tipped, and caused him to fall to the fire hold. When he recovered from the fall, according to his testimony, he went back and examined the step, and found that the two front bolts were out and that there was, therefore, nothing to hold up the front of the step. Appellee's testimony was the sole evidence of the defect in the step, and was strongly challenged and contradicted by witnesses for appellant. Whether such defect existed, and, if it did, whether appellant knew of, or should have known of, or discovered, this dangerous defect in the step, was a question for the jury.
The obligation of a shipowner to his seamen is substantially greater than that of an ordinary employer to his employees. Koehler v. Presque-Isle Transportation Co., 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 490, 492. Appellant had the duty of furnishing appellee a safe place in which to work and was responsible for a seaworthy ship and safe equipment. This duty is absolute and not merely a result of the Jones Act. Roberts v. United Fisheries Vessels Co., 1 Cir., 141 F.2d 288. "* * * seamen are the wards of the admiralty, whose traditional policy it has been to avoid, within reasonable limits, the application of the rules of the common law which would affect them harshly because of the special circumstances attending their calling." Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U.S. 424, 431, 59 S.Ct. 262, 266, 83...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vickers v. Tumey
...a seaworthy ship and safe equipment. This duty is absolute and not merely a result of the Jones Act." Interocean S.S. Co. v. Topolofsky, 6 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 783, 784, 1949 A.M.C. 198; 2 Norris, The Law of Seamen § 688 at 376 (1952). This echoed the like statement "It is the duty of the v......
-
Tindle v. Hunter Marine Transp., Inc.
...a shipowner to his seamen is substantially greater than that of an ordinary employer to his employees." Interocean S.S. Co. v. Topolofsky, 165 F.2d 783, 784 (6th Cir. 1948) (per curiam) (citing Koehler v. Presque-Isle Transp. Co., 141 F.2d 490, 492 (2d Cir. 1944)).1. Hunter Marine argues th......
-
Ahmed v. Port City Marine Servs., Inc.
...that a vessel owner's duty to provide a seaman with a safe place to work is an absolute duty. Relying on Interocean S.S. Co. v. Topolofsky, 165 F.2d 783, 784 (6th Cir. 1948); Rannals v. Diamond Jo, 265 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff argues that he suffered a direct physical injury to h......
-
Walls v. Crounse Corp.
...a shipowner to his seamen is substantially greater than that of an ordinary employer to his employees." Interocean S.S. Co. v. Topolofsky, 165 F.2d 783, 784 (6th Cir. 1948) (per curiam) (citing Koehler v. Presque-Isle Transp. Co., 141 F.2d 490, 492 (2d Cir. 1944)). The absence of non-skid p......