Wahlgren v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
| Decision Date | 22 October 1941 |
| Citation | 42 F. Supp. 992 |
| Parties | WAHLGREN v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Jacob Rassner, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City (Walter P. Hickey, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
This is a motion by the defendant for summary judgment in its favor.
The action is brought under the Jones Act for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff on November 4, 1935, at Baton Rouge, La., while employed as a seaman on the S. S. "M. F. Elliott". There is also included a claim for maintenance and cure. The action was not commenced until October 9, 1939.
The plaintiff in his bill of particulars states that at the time of the alleged accident the S. S. "M. F. Elliott" was tied up in port at Baton Rouge, La.; that he was injured on shore "about a quarter of a mile from the dock gate" while "riding in a light one-ton truck converted into a bus"; and that he was "going ashore from the ship", after obtaining permission from the officer in charge, and was not under any orders.
These statements in the bill of particulars were amplified in the plaintiff's examination before trial, in which he testified that he was off duty when he was injured, and left the ship to purchase various articles for his own personal use. He admitted in the examination that he was not sent ashore by anyone in authority on the ship but went ashore to get a few things for himself.
It is well settled that the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, has no application to injuries sustained outside of navigable waters. Jeffers v. Foundation Co., 2 Cir., 85 F.2d 24. Inasmuch, therefore, as the plaintiff admits that he was injured ashore, he is in no position to maintain an action under the Jones Act.
I think, also, that the failure to commence the action within two years after November 4, 1935, is a bar. The Jones Act prior to the amendment of August 11, 1939, provided that action must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued. 46 U.S.C.A. § 688; 45 U.S. C.A. § 56. This was not an ordinary limitation requirement, and was not affected by any disability of the plaintiff. Engel v. Davenport, 271 U.S. 33, 38, 46 S.Ct. 410, 70 L.Ed. 813; Bell v. Wabash Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 58 F.2d 569, 572; Pollen v. Ford Instrument Co., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 762.
Neither can the claim for maintenance and cure be upheld. The plaintiff was not injured in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co of New Jersey Waterman Corporation v. Jones
...cf. The J. M. Danziger, D.C., 1938 A.M.C. 685. 20 Smith v. American South African Line, Inc., D.C., 37 F.Supp. 262; Wahlgren v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 992; Collins v. Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc., Ltd., D.C., 23 F.Supp. 21 Holmes, J., dissenting in Tyson & Bro. United Th......
-
Carr-Consolidated Biscuit Company v. Moore
...185 U.S. 182, 22 S.Ct. 621, 46 L.Ed. 862; Engel v. Davenport, 271 U.S. 33, 38, 46 S.Ct. 410, 70 L.Ed. 813; Wahlgren v. Standard Oil Co. of N. J., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 42 F.Supp. 992, and cf. Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, at page 395, 66 S. Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743. See and cf. Osbourne v. Unit......
-
Osbourne v. United States
...Davenport, supra; Central Vermont Ry. v. White, supra. 5 Taylor v. Southern R. Co., D.C.E.D. Ill., 6 F.Supp. 259; Wahlgren v. Standard Oil Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 42 F.Supp. 992; Oliver v. Calmar S. S. Co., supra. 6 Atlantic Coast Line R. v. Burnette, supra. 7 Cf. Braun v. Sauerwein, 77 U.S. 218......
-
Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
...v. American South African Line, D.C., 37 F.Supp. 262; Lilly v. United States Lines Co., D.C., 42 F. Supp. 214; Wahlgren v. Standard Oil Co., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 992, 1941 A.M.C. 1788. The argument that as soon as the plaintiff had finished his business and started back to the ship, he went aga......