Plamals v. the Pinar Del Rio

Decision Date14 May 1928
Docket NumberNo. 225,225
Citation277 U.S. 151,48 S.Ct. 457,72 L.Ed. 827
PartiesPLAMALS v. THE PINAR DEL RIO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs, Charles A. Ellis and S. B. Axtell, both of New York City, for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 151-153 intentionally omitted] Mr. Cletus Keating, of New York City, for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plamals, the petitioner, a subject of Spain, belonged to the crew of the British ship Pinar Del Rio. She was anchored at Philadelphia April 27, 1923. He was being hoisted up to paint the smokestack; a rope broke; he fell to the deck and sustained serious injuries. The accident resulted from the negligence of the mate, who selected a defective rope. An abundant supply of good rope was on board.

Six months after the accident, Plamals began this proceeding in rem against the ship in the District Court, Southern District of New York. The libel alleged that his injuries 'were due to the fault or neglect of the said steamship or those in charge of her, in that the said rope was old, worn, and not suitable for use, in that libelant was ordered to perform services not within the scope of his duties, and in other respects that libelant will point out on the trial of this action.'

There is nothing to show that painting the smokestack was beyond the scope of the duties assumed.

In the District Court the petitioner asserted by his proctor that he claimed under section 33, Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007 (46 USCA § 688; Comp. St. § 8337a) which follows; that section 20 of such Act of March 4, 1925, be, and is, amended to read as follows:

'Sec. 20. 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 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; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.'

The District Court ruled that the rights and liabilities of the parties were fixed by the law of the ship's flag, and was of opinion that the British Workmen's Compensation Act afforded the only remedy. It accordingly dismissed the libel. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that a lien against the vessel is essential to every proceeding in rem against her, and that no such lien arose by reason of section 33 of the Jones Act in favor of the injured seaman. Upon that ground it affirmed the questioned decree. 16 F.(d) 984.

We agree with the view of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and find it unnecessary now to consider whether the provisions of section 33 are applicable where a foreign seaman employed on a foreign ship suffers injuries while in American waters.

The record does not support the suggestion that the Pinar Del Rio was unseaworthy. The mate selected a bad rope when good ones were available.

We must treat the proceeding as one to enforce the liability prescribed by section 33. It was so treated by petitioner's proctor at the original trial; and the application for certiorari here spoke of it as based upon that section. The evidence would not support a recovery upon any other ground.

Section 20, Act of March 4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1185), originally provided—

'That in any suit to recover damages for any injury sustained on board vessel or in its service seamen having command shall not be held to be follow-servants with those under their authority.'

Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co. (1918) 247 U. S. 372, 384, 38 S. Ct. 501, 62 L. Ed. 1171, pointed out that this imposed no new liability upon the shipowner.

Section 33 brings into our maritime law the provisions of certain statutes which define the liability of masters to employees originally intended to be enforced in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • Lauritzen v. Larsen
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1953
    ...of the court rendering it. See The Hanna Nielsen, 2 Cir., 273 F. 171; The Pinar Del Rio, 2 Cir., 16 F.2d 984, affirmed 277 U.S. 151, 48 S.Ct. 457, 72 L.Ed. 827. A few years later, in Gambera v. Bergoty, 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 414, that same court granted relief under the Jones Act to a plaintiff ......
  • Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1971
    ...483, 47 L.Ed. 760, decided in 1903. See 321 U.S., at 101—104, 64 S.Ct. at 458—460. The intervening decision of Plamals v. Pinar del Rio, 277 U.S. 151, 48 S.Ct. 457, 72 L.Ed. 827, which looked the other way, was decided in 1928. It was around that case that Justices Roberts and Frankfurter t......
  • The Arizona v. Anelich
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1936
    ...or recognized.2 It was definitely applied by this Court in Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, supra; cf. Plamals v. S. S. Pinar Del Rio, 277 U.S. 151, 155, 48 S.Ct. 457, 72 L.Ed. 827. Before the Jones Act contributory negligence was ground for mitigation of damages in suits brought by seame......
  • Poignant v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 22, 1955
    ...seaworthy. I think that both the court below and this court have returned to the doctrine of negligence of Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio, 277 U.S. 151, 48 S. Ct. 457, 72 L.Ed. 827. In Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., supra, the Supreme Court pointed out that before the decision in The Osceola,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 9 FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF PLATFORMS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Oil & Gas Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Oil (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...include Jones Act negligence giving rise to an injury to a seaman, which does not create a maritime lien. Plamals v. The pinar Del Rio, 277 U.S. 151, 1928 AMC 932 (1928). [88] La. R.S. 9:4861, et seq. [89] Louisiana Oil Well Lien Act applies to structures or the OCS as surrogate federal law......

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