Masjulis v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation
| Citation | 31 F.2d 284 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 233.,233. |
| Parties | MASJULIS v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Paul C. Matthews, of New York City (Raymond Parmer, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles H. Tuttle, of New York City (Edgar G. Wandless and Howard C. Campbell, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Since the plaintiff was using the rope under orders, it was error to submit the question of assumption of risk to the jury. Cricket Steamship Co. v. Parry (C. C. A.) 263 F. 523; Panama Railroad Co. v. Johnson (C. C. A.) 289 F. 964.
As was pointed out in the Johnson Case, supra, there is such an obligation upon a seaman to obey the orders of his superiors that he cannot have the freedom of action which lies at the base of the doctrine of assumption of risk as applied to workmen on land. On this subject the following language is quoted from the opinion in Storgard v. France & Canada Steamship Corporation (C. C. A.) 263 F. 545:
The charge given put the plaintiff where he would be at the disadvantage of having to decide between assuming the risk of injury caused by defective appliances, due to the negligence of his superiors, or of assuming the risk of disobedience to the order of his superior officer, with whatever consequences that would entail, and in either event of assuming the risk of his choice. This in effect gave to the defendants a distinct defense to the action, to which under the law they were not entitled.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Esso Shipping Company
...Callahan v. Chicago B. & O. Rd. Co., 47 Mont. 401, 133 P. 687, 47 L.R.A., N.S., 587. 4 Masjulis v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 2 Cir., 31 F.2d 284, 1929 A.M.C. 740; Darlington v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc., 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 817, 1947 A.M.C. 315; Dixon v. Unit......
-
Dixon v. United States
...De Vapores, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 25. 3 Darlington v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc., 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 817; Masjulis v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 2 Cir., 31 F.2d 284; Reskin v. Minnesota-Atlantic Transit Co., 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 743; Storgard v. France & Canada S.S. Corp., 2......
-
U.S. v. Griffith, s. 82-1485
... . Page 1244 . 756 F.2d 1244 . UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, . v. . Roy ... appealed to the Sixth Circuit on an emergency basis. They have been sitting on it for a week ......
-
South Atlantic Steamship Co. v. Munkacsy
...... STEAMSHIP COMPANY OF DELAWARE, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendant Below, ... United States, commonly known as the Jones Act, § 33 ... defendant as a seaman on board its vessel, "Liberty. Glo," which, at the time ... ordered to the work, as in U. S. Shipping Board Emergency. F. Corp. v. O'Shea, 55 App. . C. 300, 5. F.2d 123; Masjulis v. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency F. Corp. (C. ......