Jamison v. Encarnacion, No. 390

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBUTLER
Citation74 L.Ed. 1082,281 U.S. 635,50 S.Ct. 440
PartiesJAMISON et al. v. ENCARNACION
Decision Date26 May 1930
Docket NumberNo. 390

281 U.S. 635
50 S.Ct. 440
74 L.Ed. 1082
JAMISON et al.

v.

ENCARNACION.

No. 390.
Argued April 22, 1930.
Decided May 26, 1930.

Messrs. Theodore H. Lord, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and James B. Henney and Daniel Miner, both of New York City, for petitioners.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 635-637 intentionally omitted]

Page 637

Mr. William S. Butler, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action brought in the Supreme Court of New York by respondent, a longshoreman, against William A. Jamison, an employing stevedore, to recover damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a member of a crew loading a barge lying at Brooklyn in the navigable waters of the United States. One Curren was the forman in charge of the crew. While plaintiff was upon the barge engaged with

Page 638

others in loading it, the foreman struck and seriously injured him.

The evidence showed that the foreman was authorized by the employer to direct the crew and to keep them at work. Plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding that the foreman assaulted him without provocation, and to hurry him about the work. The trial judge instructed the jury that the defendant would not be liable if the foreman assaulted plaintiff by reason of a personal difference but that, if the foreman, in the course of his employment, committed an unprovoked assault upon plaintiff in furtherance of defendant's work, plaintiff might recover. The jury returned a verdict for $2,500 in favor of plaintiff, and the court gave him judgment for that amount.

The case was taken to the Appellate Division and there plaintiff invoked in support of the judgment section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, 46 U. S. C., § 688 (46 USCA § 688), and the Federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, 45 U. S. C., §§ 51-59 (45 USCA §§ 51-59). The court, 224 App. Div. 260, 230 N. Y. S. 16, held that plaintiff's injury was not the result of any negligence within the meaning of the latter act, and reversed the judgment.

The Court of Appeals, 251 N. Y. 218, page 223, 167 N. E. 422, 423, held that the Federal Employers' Liability Act applies and, after quoting the language of this court in International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U. S. 50, 52, 47 S. Ct. 19, 71 L. Ed. 157, said: 'As the word 'seamen' in the act

(§ 33, Merchant Marine Act) includes 'stevedores,' so the word 'negligence'

(§ 1, Federal Employers' Liability Act) should * * * include 'misconduct." It reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division and affirmed that of the Supreme Court.

Section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act (46 USCA § 688) provides:

'That any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by

Page 639

jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply. * * *'

Section 1 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA § 51) provides:

'That every common carrier by railroad while engaging in (interstate) commerce * * * shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce * * * for such injury * * * resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier. * * *'

Plaintiff was a seaman within the meaning of section 33 (International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, supra) and, as he sustained the injuries complained of while loading a vessel in navigable waters, the case is governed by the maritime law as modified by the acts of Congress above referred to. Northern Coal Co. v. Strand, 278 U. S. 142, 49 S. Ct. 88, 73 L. Ed. 232; Panama R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 748. He is entitled to recover if, within the meaning of section 1, his injuries resulted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
187 practice notes
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 30, 1965
    ...(in the sense of remedying an existing decisional or statutory defect in substantive law), see, e. g., Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. 635, 50 S.Ct. 440, 74 L.Ed. 1082 (1930); Miller v. Robertson, 266 U.S. 243, 45 S.Ct. 73, 69 L.Ed. 265 (1924), remedial-procedural (in a similar sense with ......
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...refined reasoning * * *. It is to be construed liberally to fulfill the purposes for which it was enacted * * *.' Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. 635, 640, 50 S.Ct. 440, 442, 74 L.Ed. 1082. Similarly, the Boiler Inspection Act, 'like the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., is to......
  • Favre v. Louisville & N. R. Co, 32973
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1938
    ...Hankins, 141 Miss. 55, 105 So. 858. The United States Supreme Court recently held, in the case of Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. (635, 74 L.Ed. 1082, that the Federal Employees Liability Act should be liberally construed to protect the largest number of men in hazardous employment. It has......
  • Monarch v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., No. A081178
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 1999
    ...fire the employee...." (Lancaster v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. (7th Cir.1985) 773 F.2d 807, 818; see also Jamison v. Encarnacion (1930) 281 U.S. 635, 641, 50 S.Ct. 440, 74 L.Ed. 1082; Besta v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (S.D.N.Y.1984) 580 F.Supp. 869.) To rule otherwise and deny liability fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
187 cases
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 30, 1965
    ...(in the sense of remedying an existing decisional or statutory defect in substantive law), see, e. g., Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. 635, 50 S.Ct. 440, 74 L.Ed. 1082 (1930); Miller v. Robertson, 266 U.S. 243, 45 S.Ct. 73, 69 L.Ed. 265 (1924), remedial-procedural (in a similar sense with ......
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...refined reasoning * * *. It is to be construed liberally to fulfill the purposes for which it was enacted * * *.' Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. 635, 640, 50 S.Ct. 440, 442, 74 L.Ed. 1082. Similarly, the Boiler Inspection Act, 'like the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., is to......
  • Favre v. Louisville & N. R. Co, 32973
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1938
    ...Hankins, 141 Miss. 55, 105 So. 858. The United States Supreme Court recently held, in the case of Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. (635, 74 L.Ed. 1082, that the Federal Employees Liability Act should be liberally construed to protect the largest number of men in hazardous employment. It has......
  • Monarch v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., No. A081178
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 1999
    ...fire the employee...." (Lancaster v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. (7th Cir.1985) 773 F.2d 807, 818; see also Jamison v. Encarnacion (1930) 281 U.S. 635, 641, 50 S.Ct. 440, 74 L.Ed. 1082; Besta v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (S.D.N.Y.1984) 580 F.Supp. 869.) To rule otherwise and deny liability fo......
  • 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