Thurnau v. Alcoa Steamship Company, 179
| Decision Date | 16 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 179,Docket 23608.,179 |
| Citation | 229 F.2d 73 |
| Parties | Patricia THURNAU, as Administratrix of the Estate of Philip George Thurnau, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Henry Fogler, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
J. Ward O'Neill, New York City (Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City) (John C. Mundt, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff's decedent, Philip G. Thurnau, a third mate of the S.S. Alcoa Pegasus, died as the result of injuries sustained while riding as a passenger in an automobile driven by a fellow crew-man, Wold. Thurnau and his companion were returning from shore leave to their duties aboard ship at the time of the accident. There was sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that Thurnau's death was caused by the negligence of Wold in the operation of the car. The car had been rented and lent to Wold by a third member of the ship's crew, Kossman.
The sole question on this appeal — even if we assume, arguendo, that Thurnau was acting "in the course of employment" within the meaning of the Jones Act while returning to his ship from shore leave — is whether a shipowner is under a duty to provide a safe means of transportation between the ship and any place of amusement crew members desire to visit while on shore leave in the vessel's home port. We think it clear that the shipowner is under no such duty, and is therefore not liable under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, for the negligence, if any, of Wold and Kossman in renting and operating a car for their private pleasure while on shore leave. See Paul v. United States, 3 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 38; Lemon v. United States, D.C.Md.1946, 68 F. Supp. 793.
The absence, because of a bus strike, of bus transportation from the dock to the places of amusement frequented by these sailors does not make the shipowner responsible for the safety of the other readily available means of transportation, such as taxis or rented cars, that may happen to be chosen by the crew. The cases relied on by the plaintiff are all distinguishable. Some are maintenance and cure cases, Warren v. United States, 1951, 340 U.S. 523, 71 S.Ct. 432, 95 L.Ed. 503; Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 1943, 318 U.S. 724, 63 S.Ct. 930, 87 L.Ed. 1107. Some are assault ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Cnty. of Nassau
...means of going ashore and returning to his ship beyond the ship's gangplank.’ ”), aff'd,205 F.2d 354 (2d Cir.1953)); Thurnau v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 229 F.2d 73, 74 (2d Cir.1956) (assuming arguendo that plaintiff was acting “in the course of employment” within the meaning of the Jones Act, a shi......
-
Dangovich v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.
...under the control of the defendant. This issue was again before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Thurnau v. Alcoa Steamship Company, 229 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1956). The court held that a shipowner was under no duty to provide the crew with safe means of transportation from and to ......
-
Whatley v. Waterman S.S. Corp.
...duty, and is therefore not liable under the Jones Act" for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Thurnau v. Alcoa Steamship Co., 229 F.2d 73, 74 (2nd Cir. 1956). To like effect is Paul v. United States, 205 F.2d 38, 41 (3rd Cir. 1953) ("That brings us to the determination of the q......
-
Bailey v. Seaboard Barge Corp.
...to his ship beyond the ship's gangplank." Wheeler v. West India S.S. Co., 103 F.Supp. 631 (S.D.N.Y.1951). In Thurnau v. Alcoa Steamship Company, 229 F.2d 73, 74 (2d Cir.1956), the Second Circuit held that a shipowner was under no duty to provide the crew with safe means of transportation fr......