Gonsalves v. Moose Dry Dock & Repair Co.

266 U.S. 171, 45 S. Ct. 39, 69 L. Ed. 228, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2905
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 17, 1924
Docket3
StatusPublished
Cited by59 cases

This text of 266 U.S. 171 (Gonsalves v. Moose Dry Dock & Repair Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gonsalves v. Moose Dry Dock & Repair Co., 266 U.S. 171, 45 S. Ct. 39, 69 L. Ed. 228, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2905 (1924).

Opinion

*172 Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Proceeding in admiralty appellant sought to recover damages for personal injuries received while he was employed by respondent and engaged in repairing the steamer Starmount.” Upon motion the trial court dismissed the libel, holding that it had no jurisdiction of the cause.

The libel alleges that respondent had charge of the work of repairing the shell plates of the steamer, then resting in a floating dock at Twenty-seventh Street, Brooklyn; that while employed by respondent and working oh board appellant suffered injuries through the explosion of a blau torch which the employer negligently permitted to be out of repair. The prayer was for monition according to the course and practice in admiralty and for damages.

Since the decree below (June 14,1921) we have decided Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479. The opinion there controls this cause unless the injuries sustained by appellant were not the result of tort, committed and effective, on navigable waters. In The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17, 33, this Court hold that repairs to a vessel while in an ordinary dry dock were not made on land. The Steamship Jefferson, 215 U. S. 130. Here repairs were made upon the ship while supported by a structure floating on navigable waters. Clearly, the accident did not occur upon land. The doctrine followed in Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co., 119 U. S. 625, 627, that “ no structure that is not a ship or vessel is a subject of salvage,” has no application. That admiralty jurisdiction in tort matters depends upon locality is settled.

The judgment below must be reversed.

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

Related

Holder v. Fraser Shipyards, Inc.
288 F. Supp. 3d 911 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2018)
Green v. Vermilion Corp.
144 F.3d 332 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Tompkins v. Port of New York Authority
217 A.D.2d 269 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Torres v. City of New York
177 A.D.2d 97 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Gypsum Carrier, Inc. v. Union Camp Corp.
489 F.2d 152 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
Dagger v. U. S. N. S. Sands
287 F. Supp. 939 (S.D. West Virginia, 1968)
Scudero v. Todd Shipyards Corp.
385 P.2d 551 (Washington Supreme Court, 1963)
Randolph v. Willis
220 F. Supp. 355 (S.D. California, 1963)
Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co.
370 U.S. 114 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Travelers Insurance Company v. C. D. Calbeck
293 F.2d 52 (Fifth Circuit, 1961)
Travelers Insurance v. Calbeck
293 F.2d 52 (Fifth Circuit, 1961)
Clyde Flowers v. The Travelers Insurance Company
258 F.2d 220 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)
Dean v. Chesapeake Bay Ferry District
158 F. Supp. 408 (E.D. Virginia, 1958)
Reynolds v. Royal Mail Lines, Ltd.
147 F. Supp. 223 (S.D. California, 1956)
Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co.
121 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. California, 1954)
Baskin v. Industrial Accident Commission
217 P.2d 733 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Moores's Case
80 N.E.2d 478 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Gahagan Const. Corporation v. Armao
165 F.2d 301 (First Circuit, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 U.S. 171, 45 S. Ct. 39, 69 L. Ed. 228, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonsalves-v-moose-dry-dock-repair-co-scotus-1924.