Johnson v. Standard Transportation Co.
This text of 188 A.D. 934 (Johnson v. Standard Transportation Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The. case was tried and submitted to the jury on the theory set forth in the complaint without objection or exception. It was a common-law action for damages for negligence. The jury having found a verdict for defendant, we are now asked to reverse the judgment and to send the case back to be tried before the court and a jury under the maritime law, which allows recovery in certain eases of contributory negligence by apportionment or abatement of plaintiff's recovery. But the maritime law cannot be administered in the State Supreme Court. It is a matter peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts. There is no Federal or State statute allowing a set-off of plaintiff’s negligence against his recovery in an action by a seaman to recover damages for injuries received through alleged negligence of those in charge of the vessel. And the basis of recovery in- such a suit in admiralty is entirely different from that in a common-law ftctiQA for damages. (Chelentis y, Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U, S. 372; [935]*935The Max Morris, 137 id. 1.) Present — Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Blackmar and Kelly, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
188 A.D. 934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-standard-transportation-co-nyappdiv-1919.