Albert Carroll v. Dravo Corporation

Third Circuit

Albert Carroll v. Dravo Corporation

393 F.2d 935, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6950

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 14, 1968

Docket16997_1

StatusPublished

This text of 393 F.2d 935 (Albert Carroll v. Dravo Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert Carroll v. Dravo Corporation, 393 F.2d 935, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6950 (3d Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

These appeals are from adverse judgments suffered below by the plaintiff seaman (1) in his civil action for damages under the Jones Act 1 which was premised on alleged negligent failure to pay maintenance and cure (Appeal No. 16996) and (2) in his admiralty action for maintenance and cure (Appeal No. 16997) .

The civil action was tried to a jury and the admiralty action to the District Court. In the civil action, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on its holding that the plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence “which would entitle him to go to the jury on the facts presented, under the law”. In the admiralty action, the District Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish his right to maintenance and cure by reason of the dual circumstances that he had refused the defendant’s offer to provide medical and surgical care and that he had made no attempt to procure such care although he was admittedly financially able to do so.

In its “Memorandum and Order Directing Judgment for Respondent”, the District Court stated that its disposition was without prejudice to the filing of a future claim for maintenance and cure should the plaintiff receive required medical or surgical treatment procured either at his own expense or under arrangements made by the defendant.

On review of the record we find no error.

The judgments entered below will be affirmed.

1

. 46 U.S.C.A. § 688.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

These appeals are from adverse judgments suffered below by the plaintiff seaman (1) in his civil action for damages under the Jones Act 1 which was premised on alleged negligent failure to pay maintenance and cure (Appeal No. 16996) and (2) in his admiralty action for maintenance and cure (Appeal No. 16997) .

The civil action was tried to a jury and the admiralty action to the District Court. In the civil action, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on its holding that the plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence “which would entitle him to go to the jury on the facts presented, under the law”. In the admiralty action, the District Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish his right to maintenance and cure by reason of the dual circumstances that he had refused the defendant’s offer to provide medical and surgical care and that he had made no attempt to procure such care although he was admittedly financially able to do so.

In its “Memorandum and Order Directing Judgment for Respondent”, the District Court stated that its disposition was without prejudice to the filing of a future claim for maintenance and cure should the plaintiff receive required medical or surgical treatment procured either at his own expense or under arrangements made by the defendant.

On review of the record we find no error.

The judgments entered below will be affirmed.

1

. 46 U.S.C.A. § 688.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 F.2d 935, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-carroll-v-dravo-corporation-ca3-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack