Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.

Supreme Court

Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.

355 U.S. 20, 78 S. Ct. 1, 2 L. Ed. 2d 3, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1571

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 25, 1957

Docket350

StatusPublished

Cited by46 cases

This text of 355 U.S. 20 (Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship 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

Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., 355 U.S. 20, 78 S. Ct. 1, 2 L. Ed. 2d 3, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1571 (1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. * We hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to charge respondent’s request *21 No. 12. The petitioner’s alleged choice of a more dangerous route did not, under the proofs, operate to bar recovery as a matter of law. The jury was properly instructed that the petitioner’s negligence, if any, was to be considered in mitigation of damages under the rule applicable in actions for personal injuries arising from maritime torts. Poye & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 408-409; cf. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U. S. 424.

For reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.

[For memorandum of Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Whittaker, see ante, p. 19.]

*

[Amended, post, p. 910, to provide for remand of the case to the Court of Appeals.]

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

Per Curiam.

The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. * We hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to charge respondent’s request *21 No. 12. The petitioner’s alleged choice of a more dangerous route did not, under the proofs, operate to bar recovery as a matter of law. The jury was properly instructed that the petitioner’s negligence, if any, was to be considered in mitigation of damages under the rule applicable in actions for personal injuries arising from maritime torts. Poye & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 408-409; cf. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U. S. 424.

For reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.

[For memorandum of Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Whittaker, see ante, p. 19.]

*

[Amended, post, p. 910, to provide for remand of the case to the Court of Appeals.]

Christopher Mitchell v. F/v Janice, Official Number 560264, Her Engines, Tackle and Appurtenances Ocean Warrior Inc., Corporation, and Warrior Fleet, Inc., a Corporation, in Rem and in Personam, Christopher Mitchell v. F/v Janice, Official Number 560264, Her Engines, Tackle and Appurtenances Ocean Warrior Inc., Corporation, and Warrior Fleet, Inc., a Corporation, in Rem and in Personam

15 F.3d 1087 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Benham v. Woltermann

Montana Supreme Court, 1982

Gordon H. Hubbard and Shirley M. Hubbard v. Faros Fisheries, Inc.

626 F.2d 196 (First Circuit, 1980)

Stephen Edynak v. Atlantic Shipping Inc. Cie. Chambon MacLovia S. A. v. Allied Chemical Company, Atlantic Shipping, Inc.

562 F.2d 215 (Third Circuit, 1977)

Britt v. Corporacion Peruana De Vapores

506 F.2d 927 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)

MISSOURI PORTLAND CEM. CO. v. Denny Concrete Co., Inc.

499 S.W.2d 432 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1973)

Welch v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.

336 F. Supp. 383 (W.D. Louisiana, 1972)

Curry v. United States

327 F. Supp. 155 (N.D. California, 1971)

Rogers v. Gracey-Hellums Corp.

331 F. Supp. 1287 (E.D. Louisiana, 1970)

Silver v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

310 F. Supp. 681 (E.D. Virginia, 1970)

Napolitano v. Compania Sud Americana De Vapores

421 F.2d 382 (Second Circuit, 1970)

Felice Napolitano v. Compania Sud Americana De Vapores, Also Known as Chilean Line, Felice Napolitano v. Compania Sud Americana De Vapores, Also Known as Chilean Line

421 F.2d 382 (Second Circuit, 1970)

Solet v. M/V Capt. H. v. Dufrene

303 F. Supp. 980 (E.D. Louisiana, 1969)

Mrs. Mae Frances Neal, Individually and the Minors, James Neal, Jr., Etc. v. Saga Shipping Co., S.A.

407 F.2d 481 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)

Elijah Dubose v. Matson Navigation Company, a Corporation

403 F.2d 875 (Ninth Circuit, 1968)

Hudson Waterways Corporation v. William J. Schneider

365 F.2d 1012 (Ninth Circuit, 1966)

Raymond H. Manning v. M/v Sea Road, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Appurtenances, Etc.

358 F.2d 615 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)

Rebecca Cross v. United States

347 F.2d 327 (Eighth Circuit, 1965)

Robert Bernard Smith, and Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, and Cross-Appellee v. Whitehall Terminal Corporation

336 F.2d 165 (Fourth Circuit, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 U.S. 20, 78 S. Ct. 1, 2 L. Ed. 2d 3, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palermo-v-luckenbach-steamship-co-scotus-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack