Beyer v. Hamburg-American S. S. Co.

171 F. 582, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4841
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedMay 13, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 F. 582 (Beyer v. Hamburg-American S. S. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beyer v. Hamburg-American S. S. Co., 171 F. 582, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4841 (circtsdny 1909).

Opinion

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

This is an action by a servant against his master to recover damages arising from the alleged failure of the latter to use reasonable care to furnish the former a safe place in which to work. It is not alleged that the master contracted to furnish a safe place. Such a contract would be most extraordinary. It is alleged that the defendant^failed in the performance of its duty as master to furnish a safe place. When the contract of employment was entered into, the law governing the relation of master and servant imposed that obligation. The duty arose out of the relation created by the contract, but it was a duty imposed by law. Failure to fulfill that obligation was a failure in the performance of a duty, and not a violation of contract. Failure to do a duty is negligence; and an action for damages for failure to perform a duty is an action of negligence — an action founded in tort, and not in contract.

The action being founded in tort, the liability of the defendant must be determined by the law of the place where the accident causing the damage sued for took place. This accident occurred upon the high seas, upon a German vessel, carrying the German flag. The law of Germany, therefore, governs the case. Consequently the German statute, substituting fixed and certain liability for injuries in place of responsibility for negligence, and compliance therewith, constitute a good defense to this action.

The demurrer to the defendant’s separate defense is overruled, with costs.

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

Related

Kruse v. Pillsbury
162 P. 891 (California Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
171 F. 582, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beyer-v-hamburg-american-s-s-co-circtsdny-1909.