Calvino v. Farley

S.D. New York

Calvino v. Farley

23 F. Supp. 654, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2010

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMarch 19, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 F. Supp. 654 (Calvino v. Farley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calvino v. Farley, 23 F. Supp. 654, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2010 (S.D.N.Y. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, District Judge.

The motion is to dismiss a cause of action for maintenance and cure as insufficient on its face. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, while in the employ of Outeda & Company and receiving wages from that concern, was sent by his employer aboard the defendants’ vessel to do work there, and received injuries while on board. It is alleged that although the plaintiff was employed not by the master or owner but by an independent contractor, the work being done by him was of a kind ordinarily done by seamen. Relief for maintenance and cure in the sum of $5,000 is demanded.

By general maritime law a vessel and her owner are bound to provide maintenance and cure to a seaman falling sick or sustaining injury in the service of the vessel, irrespective of negligence. The obligation springs from the relationship the seaman bears to his vessel and is deemed by law to be an inevitable incident of the contract of employment. Pacific Steamship Co. v. Peterson, 278 U.S. 130, 49 S.Ct. 75, 73 L.Ed. 220; Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U.S. 367, 53 S.Ct. 173, 77 L.Ed. 368. The liability for maintenance and cure is one owed only to seamen. It does not extend to other maritime workers, surely not to persons employed by an independent contractor who perform work on a vessel while in port. See Yaconi v. Brady & Gioe, Inc., 246 N.Y. 300, 307, 158 N.E. 876.

Here the work in which the plaintiff was engaged was maritime in character, but he was not a seaman and no contractual relationship existed between him and the defendants. It is of no importance that the plaintiff might be deemed -a seaman within the scope of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. Uravic v. Jarka Co., 282 U.S. 234, 239, 51 S.Ct. 111, 112, 75 L.Ed. 312. The objection made by the defendants is a sound one, and the second cause of action in the complaint will be dismissed as insufficient on its face.

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

PATTERSON, District Judge.

The motion is to dismiss a cause of action for maintenance and cure as insufficient on its face. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, while in the employ of Outeda & Company and receiving wages from that concern, was sent by his employer aboard the defendants’ vessel to do work there, and received injuries while on board. It is alleged that although the plaintiff was employed not by the master or owner but by an independent contractor, the work being done by him was of a kind ordinarily done by seamen. Relief for maintenance and cure in the sum of $5,000 is demanded.

By general maritime law a vessel and her owner are bound to provide maintenance and cure to a seaman falling sick or sustaining injury in the service of the vessel, irrespective of negligence. The obligation springs from the relationship the seaman bears to his vessel and is deemed by law to be an inevitable incident of the contract of employment. Pacific Steamship Co. v. Peterson, 278 U.S. 130, 49 S.Ct. 75, 73 L.Ed. 220; Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U.S. 367, 53 S.Ct. 173, 77 L.Ed. 368. The liability for maintenance and cure is one owed only to seamen. It does not extend to other maritime workers, surely not to persons employed by an independent contractor who perform work on a vessel while in port. See Yaconi v. Brady & Gioe, Inc., 246 N.Y. 300, 307, 158 N.E. 876.

Here the work in which the plaintiff was engaged was maritime in character, but he was not a seaman and no contractual relationship existed between him and the defendants. It is of no importance that the plaintiff might be deemed -a seaman within the scope of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. Uravic v. Jarka Co., 282 U.S. 234, 239, 51 S.Ct. 111, 112, 75 L.Ed. 312. The objection made by the defendants is a sound one, and the second cause of action in the complaint will be dismissed as insufficient on its face.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. Supp. 654, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvino-v-farley-nysd-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack