Keefe v. Matson Nav. Co., 20425.
Decision Date | 30 December 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 20425.,20425. |
Citation | 46 F.2d 123 |
Parties | KEEFE v. MATSON NAV. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Harry S. Redpath, Joseph Wicks, and Arthur Collett, Jr., all of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff.
Huffer, Hayden, Merritt, Summers & Bucey, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
NETERER, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The statement in the complaint that plaintiff elects to bring the action under section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act is not controlling. The stated facts control.
The plaintiff, if injured, has two remedies: One, under the new rules, which extends the common-law right of remedy in cases of personal injury, etc., to recover compensatory damages for negligence; or, under the old rules, for liability for injury to a seaman in consequence of unseaworthiness of the ship, "usually consisting of wages and the expense of maintenance and cure" (Panama Railway Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 395, 68 L. Ed. 748) — a contractual right (Pacific Steamship Company v. Peterson, 278 U. S. 130, 49 S. Ct. 75, 73 L. Ed. 220).
The election provided by section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, supra, is between the old rule for indemnity for injuries occasioned by unseaworthiness, irrespective of negligence, and the rule allowing maintenance and cure. In the Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 23 S. Ct. 483, 487, 47 L. Ed. 760, the court says:
See, also, Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc., 247 U. S. 372, 38 S. Ct. 501, 62 L. Ed. 1171.
The sole ground for recovery is unseaworthiness. No act of negligence is claimed; no charge is made of inadequacy of any appliances not strictly belonging to the navigation of the ship; no common-law liability is asserted, nor is the common law competent to give relief, no fact being stated to bring the case within the new rule for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bullis v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 72-1211.
...steer" the ship. Id. at 404. The present plaintiffs merely acted. 2 The J. S. Warden, 175 F. 314 (S.D.N.Y. 1910). 3 Keefe v. Matson Nav. Co., 46 F.2d 123 (W.D.Wash.1930). 4 The Sultana, 23 F.Cas. 379 (No. 13,602) 5 The Sea Lark, 14 F.2d 201 (W.D.Wash. 1926). 6 The requirement might be bette......
-
Perez v. Marine Transport Lines
...Shrigley, D.C.N.Y., 50 F. 287. 10 The Sultana, Fed.Cas.No.13,602. 11 The J. S. Warden, D.C.N.Y., 175 F. 314. 12 Keefe v. Matson Nav. Co., D.C.Wash., 46 F.2d 123, 1931 A.M.C. 426. 13 Gianfala v. Texas Company, 14 Osland v. Star Fish & Oyster Co., 5 Cir., 107 F.2d 113. 15 The Sea Lark, D.C.Wa......
-
Theall v. Sam Carline, Inc., Civ. A. No. 8476.
...negligence and lack of ordinary care under the circumstances, which negligence resulted in plaintiff's injuries. Keefe v. Matson Nav. Co., 46 F.2d 123, (D.C.W.D.Washington 1930). Any negligence on the part of an employer under the Jones Act which plays any part, even the slightest, in produ......