Anthony Thomas v. Central Linen Company, a Corporation

D.C. Circuit

Anthony Thomas v. Central Linen Company, a Corporation

263 F.2d 495, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 49, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5132, 1961 A.M.C. 2685

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1959

Docket14518_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 263 F.2d 495 (Anthony Thomas v. Central Linen Company, a Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony Thomas v. Central Linen Company, a Corporation, 263 F.2d 495, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 49, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5132, 1961 A.M.C. 2685 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant husband was injured in the course of his employment and received hospital treatment and compensation *496 under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 1 He also sued appellee, his employer, in the District Court in the effort to recover damages apart from the compensation statute, and his wife, also an appellant, sued in the same complaint for damages due to loss of consortium.

The motion of appellee for summary judgment was granted against both appellants. We think this was correct as to the husband because he set forth no cause of action against the employer in which there was any genuine issue of material fact bearing upon a claim for damages other than amounts due under the compensation statute. And it follows as to the wife, under our decision in Smither & Company, Inc. v. Coles, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 68, 242 F.2d 220, certiorari denied 354 U.S. 914, 77 S.Ct. 1299,1 L.Ed.2d 1129, that summary judgment was properly granted against her as well.

Affirmed.

1

. 44 Stat. 1420, 1427, as amended, 33 U.S. C.A. §§ 906-907, as amended, D.C.Code 1951, §§ 36-501, 36-502, 33 U.S.C.A. § 903 note.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant husband was injured in the course of his employment and received hospital treatment and compensation *496 under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 1 He also sued appellee, his employer, in the District Court in the effort to recover damages apart from the compensation statute, and his wife, also an appellant, sued in the same complaint for damages due to loss of consortium.

The motion of appellee for summary judgment was granted against both appellants. We think this was correct as to the husband because he set forth no cause of action against the employer in which there was any genuine issue of material fact bearing upon a claim for damages other than amounts due under the compensation statute. And it follows as to the wife, under our decision in Smither & Company, Inc. v. Coles, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 68, 242 F.2d 220, certiorari denied 354 U.S. 914, 77 S.Ct. 1299,1 L.Ed.2d 1129, that summary judgment was properly granted against her as well.

Affirmed.

1

. 44 Stat. 1420, 1427, as amended, 33 U.S. C.A. §§ 906-907, as amended, D.C.Code 1951, §§ 36-501, 36-502, 33 U.S.C.A. § 903 note.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 F.2d 495, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 49, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5132, 1961 A.M.C. 2685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-thomas-v-central-linen-company-a-corporation-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack