Branch v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique

11 F. Supp. 832, 1935 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1474
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 22, 1935·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

HULBERT, District Judge.

It seems to be well settled that a shipowner do.es his whole duty if he employs a duly qualified and competent surgeon and medical practitioner, and supplies him with all necessary and proper instruments, medicines, and medical comforts, and has him in readiness for such passengers as choose to employ him. The Great Northern (C. C. A.) 251 F. 826, quoting from O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co., 154 Mass. 272, 28 N. E. 266, 13 L. R. A. 329. The Korea Maru (C. C. A.) 254 F. 397, can be distinguished for in that case the patients were steerage passengers for whom special provision is made by law. 46 USCA § 155. The pleading to which the motion is addressed is badly phrased and does not establish a cause of action. Motion granted, but with leave to amend within ten days if plaintiff chooses to do so.

Settle order on notice.

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

Branch v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 11 F. Supp. 832, 1935 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1474 (S.D.N.Y. 1935).

11 F. Supp. 832 (Branch v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

MacK v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
838 N.E.2d 80 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2005)
Carlisle v. Carnival Corp.
864 So. 2d 1 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Amdur v. Zim Israel Navigation Company
310 F. Supp. 1033 (S.D. New York, 1969)
De Zon v. American President Lines, Ltd.
318 U.S. 660 (Supreme Court, 1943)