Militano v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 December 1943 |
| Parties | MILITANO v. UNITED STATES. THE BENJAMIN HAWKINS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Jacob Rassner and Benjamin Green, both of New York City, for libelant.
Corydon B. Dunham, of New York City, for respondent.
Action by libelant against the United States of America for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by libelant while he was employed as a seaman aboard the vessel S. S. Benjamin Hawkins which it is claimed was owned and operated by respondent.
Libelant contends that the accident which resulted in his injuries was caused and brought about by the carelessness and negligence of respondent, its agents, servants and employees in failing and neglecting to provide libelant with a safe place to work and with sufficient, adequate and proper tools, appliances and implements.
The action was brought under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688.
Libelent has moved to dismiss the affirmative defenses set up in respondent's answer, paragraphs seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first. On the argument, libelant's attorney withdrew his objection to affirmative defense fifth (paragraph twentieth of the answer).
The second separate defense in the answer (paragraph seventeenth) sets up the defense of assumption of risk. It has now been definitely decided that the defense of assumption of risk is not a defense in a suit brought by a seaman under the Jones Act for the negligent failure of a master to provide safe appliances or a safe place in which to work. Beadle v. Spencer, 298 U.S. 124, 56 S.Ct. 712, 80 L.Ed. 1082; The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110, 56 S.Ct. 707, 80 L.Ed. 1075.
Certainly under the allegations of the libel, paragraphs tenth, eleventh and twelfth, libelant comes within the benefits given seamen under the Jones Act as defined in the two aforesaid cases.
Both libelant and respondent, however, in arguing the motion before me and in their briefs have gone beyond the facts set forth in the libel. Both agree, apparently, that libelant was a stevedore working on the ship in question when he was injured.
It has now been determined that the term "seaman" includes stevedores engaged in the maritime work of stowing cargo. Libelant comes within this designation. International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157.
There the court did not pass upon the question of assumption of risk, but did adjudicate that a stevedore, as described above, could commence an action as a "seaman" under the Jones Act and that thereby he could recover even though the accident was caused by a fellow servant.
Since a stevedore may sue as a seaman under the Jones Act, he should be allowed all of the privileges given to a seaman under that Act, which does away not only with the fellow servant rule, but also the assumption of risk defense.
Libelant's motion is granted as to the second affirmative defense.
Affirmative defenses third, fourth (paragraph eighteenth and nineteenth of the answer should be considered together). Generally in these defenses, respondent alleges that at the time of his injury, libelant was in the employ of the United States and that his employment was such that he came within the provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 751 et seq., and that whatever injuries he received arose out of and in the course of his said employment and that compensation therefor was provided for in the aforesaid Compensation Act, and that libelant, after his injury, made claim for and accepted compensation and other benefits in a substantial amount pursuant to the provisions of the aforesaid Compensation Act and that, therefore, he is barred from maintaining this action. I think this defense should stand. Dahn v. Davis, 258 U.S. 421, 42 S.Ct. 320, 66 L.Ed. 696; Brady v. Roosevelt S. S. Co., 317 U.S. 575, 63 S.Ct. 425, 87 L.Ed. 471.
Libelant objects to this defense and contends that Public Law 17 (U.S.Code Congressional Service, Volume 1, Page 42, 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev.Code §§ 1400 note, 1426)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbs v. United States
...affirming Hines v. Dahn, 8 Cir., 1920, 207 F. 105; Hillenbrand v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1929 A.M.C. 885; Militano v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1943, 55 F.Supp. 904, affirmed 2 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 599, certiorari dismissed, 329 U.S. 682, 67 S.Ct. 193, 91 L.Ed. 600; Parr v. United St......
-
Jefferson v. United States, Civ. No. 3692.
...rehearing denied 318 U.S. 799, 63 S.Ct. 659, 87 L.Ed. 1163; Dahn v. Davis, 258 U.S. 421, 42 S.Ct. 320, 66 L.Ed. 696; Militano v. United States, D.C.N.Y., 55 F. Supp. 904; United States v. Marine, 4 Cir., 155 F.2d 456, affirming, D.C.Md., 65 F.Supp. 111; See also the discussion in a case not......
-
Jefferson v. United States
...rehearing denied 318 U.S. 799, 63 S.Ct. 659, 87 L.Ed. 1163; Dahn v. Davis, 258 U.S. 421, 42 S.Ct. 320, 66 L.Ed. 696; Militano v. United States, D.C.N.Y., 55 F. Supp. 904; United States v. Marine, 4 Cir., 155 F.2d 456, affirming D.C.Md., 65 F.Supp. I am not satisfied that the reasoning of th......
-
Hust v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
...Act (46 U.S.C., sec. 741 et seq.), affords libellant adequate remedy against the owner of the vessel." See, also, Militano v. United States, 55 F. Supp. 904, 1944 A.M.C. 1250, D.C.S.D.N.Y. (December 3, 1943); Nielsen v. American President Lines, Ltd., 1944 A.M.C. 1169, S.Ct. N.Y., N.Y. Coun......