Erickson v. Shamrock Towing Co.

S.D. New York

Erickson v. Shamrock Towing Co.

81 F. Supp. 850, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1973

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 21, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 81 F. Supp. 850 (Erickson v. Shamrock Towing Co.) 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

Erickson v. Shamrock Towing Co., 81 F. Supp. 850, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1973 (S.D.N.Y. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

BONDY, District Judge.

Defendant moves to dismiss the first cause of action solely on the ground that it fails to state a claim against the defendant. The first cause of action is based upon unseaworthiness of the ship upon which the plaintiff sustained injuries. Defendant’s contention is: “Since the cause of action for unseaworthiness lies against the ship, the cause of action is one essentially in rem and is not cognizable in personam at common law. As the plaintiff’s claim in the first cause of action is bottomed on unseaworthiness, he can only enforce the same on the admiralty side of this Court by proceeding against the vessel in rem. Such a ■cause of action for unseaworthiness is not enforceable in a common law action against the owner of the ship in personam. Therefore, in the instant case, the first cause of action is not here enforceable.”

In Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 88, 66 S.Ct. 872, 874, 90 L.Ed. 1099, it is stated: “It is now well settled that a right peculiar to the law of admiralty may be enforced either by a suit in admiralty or by one on the law side of the [851]*851court.” In German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 3 Cir., 156 F.2d 977, 979, it was held that “the injured seaman may-join in the same complaint causes of action based upon negligence under the Jones Act, [46 U.S.C.A. § 688] and unseaworthiness under general maritime principles.”

The defendant’s motion accordingly is denied.

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

BONDY, District Judge.

Defendant moves to dismiss the first cause of action solely on the ground that it fails to state a claim against the defendant. The first cause of action is based upon unseaworthiness of the ship upon which the plaintiff sustained injuries. Defendant’s contention is: “Since the cause of action for unseaworthiness lies against the ship, the cause of action is one essentially in rem and is not cognizable in personam at common law. As the plaintiff’s claim in the first cause of action is bottomed on unseaworthiness, he can only enforce the same on the admiralty side of this Court by proceeding against the vessel in rem. Such a ■cause of action for unseaworthiness is not enforceable in a common law action against the owner of the ship in personam. Therefore, in the instant case, the first cause of action is not here enforceable.”

In Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 88, 66 S.Ct. 872, 874, 90 L.Ed. 1099, it is stated: “It is now well settled that a right peculiar to the law of admiralty may be enforced either by a suit in admiralty or by one on the law side of the [851]*851court.” In German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 3 Cir., 156 F.2d 977, 979, it was held that “the injured seaman may-join in the same complaint causes of action based upon negligence under the Jones Act, [46 U.S.C.A. § 688] and unseaworthiness under general maritime principles.”

The defendant’s motion accordingly is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 F. Supp. 850, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erickson-v-shamrock-towing-co-nysd-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack