Kristiansen v. National Dredging Co.
| Decision Date | 06 September 1933 |
| Citation | 4 F. Supp. 925 |
| Parties | KRISTIANSEN v. NATIONAL DREDGING CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Carl R. Wittekind (by Frank C. Mason), of New York City, for plaintiff.
Alexander, Ash & Jones, of New York City, for defendant.
This is a motion to remand the above-entitled action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings.
The sole ground for the removal was diversity of citizenship.
This action was brought under the Jones Act, Act of June 5, 1920, c. 250, § 33 (title 46, § 688, U. S. C. 46 USCA § 688), and therefore was not removable to this court. Engel v. Davenport, 271 U. S. 33, 46 S. Ct. 410, 70 L. Ed. 813; Goetz v. Interlake S. S. Co. (D. C.) 47 F.(2d) 753; Atianza v. United States Shipping Board Emergency F. Corp. (D. C.) 3 F.(2d) 845; Beer v. Clyde S. S. Co. (D. C.) 300 F. 561.
The complaint alleges an action for damages for negligence under the Jones Act, and the complaint is the only criterion on a motion of this kind. Wile v. Burns Bros. (D. C.) 2 F.Supp. 951.
Defendant cites. The Red Eagle (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 541, 543, in which the court held that there cannot be two proximate causes of a disaster; but that case is not in point for the reason that in the case at bar negligence is the sole proximate cause of the damage alleged.
Keefe v. Matson Navigation Co. (D. C.) 46 F.(2d) 123, cited by the defendant, is not authority in support of defendant's contention that the case at bar is based on unseaworthiness.
In the Keefe Case the complaint alleged: "That such condition of the stateroom constituted the vessel unseaworthy; that the said unseaworthy condition was the proximate and sole cause of plaintiff's illness." No charge of negligence was made, and the complaint alleged that the unseaworthiness was the proximate and sole cause. This is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar, in which negligence as the cause of the damage is alleged, and the word "unseaworthy" describes a condition which had resulted from the negligence alleged, and which negligence was the proximate cause.
In view of the statement as to the contents of the complaint in Engel v. Davenport, supra, at page 34 of 271 U. S., 46 S. Ct. 410, 411, 70 L. Ed. 813, which is as follows: "The complaint alleged, in substance, that the vessel had been negligently sent upon her voyage when unseaworthy and equipped with defective appliances, in that a pelican hook, which was a necessary part of the chain lashing used in carrying the cargo, had in it a flaw observable upon ordinary inspection; that this hook was not inspected; and that it broke by reason of this flaw, causing the injuries in question," and the fact that the use of the word "unseaworthy"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gates v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.
...in controversy, and the counterclaim can not be considered. Harley v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., D.C., 245 F. 471; Kristiansen v. National Dredging Co., D.C., 4 F.Supp. 925; St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. The contention of the defendant that th......
-
Trullinger v. Rosenblum
...in controversy, and the counterclaim can not be considered. Harley v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., D.C., 245 F. 471; Kristiansen v. National Dredging Co., D.C., 4 F.Supp. 925; St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. In a previous opinion, Harley v. Fi......
-
Gutierrez v. Pacific Tankers
...Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., D.C., 1 F.2d 603; Beckwith v. American President Lines, D.C., 68 F.Supp. 353; Kristiansen v. National Dredging Co., D.C., 4 F.Supp. 925; Smith v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S.S.Co., 5 Cir., 105 F.2d 604; Engel v. Davenport, 271 U.S. 33, 46 S.Ct. 410, 70 L.Ed......
-
Gunderson v. Barber Asphalt Corporation
...At least one case suggests that the answer should be in the negative, although it is not exactly in point (Kristiansen v. National Dredging Co., D.C., E.D.N.Y., 1933, 4 F.Supp. 925). This conflict of opinion indicates that the background of decision ought to be briefly No case need be cited......