Mary Turcich, Administratrix of the Estate of John Zvanja, Deceased v. The Liberty Corporation. In Re Zvanja's Estate

Third Circuit

Mary Turcich, Administratrix of the Estate of John Zvanja, Deceased v. The Liberty Corporation. In Re Zvanja's Estate

217 F.2d 495, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4174, 1955 A.M.C. 41

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 1954

Docket11317_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 217 F.2d 495 (Mary Turcich, Administratrix of the Estate of John Zvanja, Deceased v. The Liberty Corporation. In Re Zvanja's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mary Turcich, Administratrix of the Estate of John Zvanja, Deceased v. The Liberty Corporation. In Re Zvanja's Estate, 217 F.2d 495, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4174, 1955 A.M.C. 41 (3d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in an action for wrongful death under the Jones Act, 46 U.S. C.A. § 688, brought by the personal representative of a deceased seaman on behalf of dependent relatives. The action was tried by the district court and a jury. After the jury returned its verdict for the defendant the plaintiff, moved for a new trial. After hearing the motion, it was denied for the reasons set forth in Turcich v. Liberty Corp., D.C.E.D.Pa.1954, 119 F.Supp. 7.

In this appeal plaintiff contends, inter alia, that the court’s charge, taken as a whole, predicates liability for unseaworthiness on a showing of negligence. Plaintiff’s second point is that by analogy to those cases under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 51 et seq., in which recovery for the death of railroad workers has been predicated upon a nonnegligent breach of the federal Safety Appliances Statutes, 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., this Court should allow recovery under the Jones Act for the death of a seaman resulting from a nonnegligent breach of the duty to have a seaworthy vessel. Counsel for plaintiff frankly admits that there is no direct authority for his second proposition and that there is dicta to the contrary as in Lindgren v. United States, 1930, 281 U.S. 38, 50 S.Ct. 207, 74 L.Ed. 686; Kunschman v. United States, 2 Cir., 1932, 54 F.2d 987. We think that his proposition is highly interesting but we do not think that the question is reached in the instant case.

Our examination of the court’s charge, the pertinent parts of which may be found in Turcich v. Liberty Corp., supra, leads us to the conclusion that no error was committed of which the plaintiff can complain. Indeed, at one point, it seems to adopt the very proposition now contended for yet the jury’s verdict was for the defendant. We have examined plaintiff’s other contentions and find no reversible error.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in an action for wrongful death under the Jones Act, 46 U.S. C.A. § 688, brought by the personal representative of a deceased seaman on behalf of dependent relatives. The action was tried by the district court and a jury. After the jury returned its verdict for the defendant the plaintiff, moved for a new trial. After hearing the motion, it was denied for the reasons set forth in Turcich v. Liberty Corp., D.C.E.D.Pa.1954, 119 F.Supp. 7.

In this appeal plaintiff contends, inter alia, that the court’s charge, taken as a whole, predicates liability for unseaworthiness on a showing of negligence. Plaintiff’s second point is that by analogy to those cases under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 51 et seq., in which recovery for the death of railroad workers has been predicated upon a nonnegligent breach of the federal Safety Appliances Statutes, 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., this Court should allow recovery under the Jones Act for the death of a seaman resulting from a nonnegligent breach of the duty to have a seaworthy vessel. Counsel for plaintiff frankly admits that there is no direct authority for his second proposition and that there is dicta to the contrary as in Lindgren v. United States, 1930, 281 U.S. 38, 50 S.Ct. 207, 74 L.Ed. 686; Kunschman v. United States, 2 Cir., 1932, 54 F.2d 987. We think that his proposition is highly interesting but we do not think that the question is reached in the instant case.

Our examination of the court’s charge, the pertinent parts of which may be found in Turcich v. Liberty Corp., supra, leads us to the conclusion that no error was committed of which the plaintiff can complain. Indeed, at one point, it seems to adopt the very proposition now contended for yet the jury’s verdict was for the defendant. We have examined plaintiff’s other contentions and find no reversible error.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 F.2d 495, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4174, 1955 A.M.C. 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-turcich-administratrix-of-the-estate-of-john-zvanja-deceased-v-the-ca3-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack