Peros v. Grace Line, Inc.

S.D. New York

Peros v. Grace Line, Inc.

255 F. Supp. 294, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8135

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 6, 1966

DocketNo. 64 Civ. 3791; No. 65 Adm. 526

StatusPublished

This text of 255 F. Supp. 294 (Peros v. Grace Line, Inc.) 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

Peros v. Grace Line, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 294, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8135 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM.

MURPHY, District Judge.

Mile Peros, a longshoreman, seeks damages for injuries sustained on board the S.S. SANTA LUISA and brings an action at law against Grace Line, Inc. and a proceeding in admiralty against the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant. It is undisputed that he was employed by Grace Line, Inc. as a longshoreman and that Grace Line, Inc. is the owner of the S.S. SANTA LUISA. It is also undisputed that Grace Line, Inc. has in all respects complied with the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.).

Defendant Grace Line, Inc., and the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant, move to dismiss the action and the libel on the ground that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act is libelant’s exclusive remedy and plaintiff-libelant countermoves to strike such defeiises as insufficient. At issue is whether Reed v. S.S. Yaka, 373 U.S. 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448 (1963) [295]*295is controlling or whether the facts in this case, viz., the respondent is the actual owner of the ship and the actual stevedore employer, are enough to distinguish it.

Judge Weinfeld on almost identical facts held that Yaka controlled. Hertel v. American Export Lines, 225 F.Supp. 703 (S.D.N.Y.1964). More recently Judge Bonsai did likewise. Carroll v. S.S. Santa Rosa, Claimant Grace Lines, Inc., D.C., 257 F.Supp. 688 (May 4, 1966).

We agree with our brothers and deny respondent’s motion and grant libelant’s.

These are orders. No settlements are necessary.

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

MEMORANDUM.

MURPHY, District Judge.

Mile Peros, a longshoreman, seeks damages for injuries sustained on board the S.S. SANTA LUISA and brings an action at law against Grace Line, Inc. and a proceeding in admiralty against the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant. It is undisputed that he was employed by Grace Line, Inc. as a longshoreman and that Grace Line, Inc. is the owner of the S.S. SANTA LUISA. It is also undisputed that Grace Line, Inc. has in all respects complied with the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.).

Defendant Grace Line, Inc., and the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant, move to dismiss the action and the libel on the ground that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act is libelant’s exclusive remedy and plaintiff-libelant countermoves to strike such defeiises as insufficient. At issue is whether Reed v. S.S. Yaka, 373 U.S. 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448 (1963) [295]*295is controlling or whether the facts in this case, viz., the respondent is the actual owner of the ship and the actual stevedore employer, are enough to distinguish it.

Judge Weinfeld on almost identical facts held that Yaka controlled. Hertel v. American Export Lines, 225 F.Supp. 703 (S.D.N.Y.1964). More recently Judge Bonsai did likewise. Carroll v. S.S. Santa Rosa, Claimant Grace Lines, Inc., D.C., 257 F.Supp. 688 (May 4, 1966).

We agree with our brothers and deny respondent’s motion and grant libelant’s.

These are orders. No settlements are necessary.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F. Supp. 294, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peros-v-grace-line-inc-nysd-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack