Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Second Circuit

Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

323 F.2d 996

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided October 18, 1963·No. No. 79, Docket 28158·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment below in open court.

From the testimony of plaintiff in his deposition below it is clear that the accident suffered by him occurred under such circumstances that his sole and exclusive remedy was under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The complaint below alleged jurisdiction by virtue of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Thus, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. O’Rourke, 344 U.S. 334, 73 S.Ct. 302, 97 L.Ed. 367 (1952).

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment below in open court.

From the testimony of plaintiff in his deposition below it is clear that the accident suffered by him occurred under such circumstances that his sole and exclusive remedy was under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The complaint below alleged jurisdiction by virtue of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Thus, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. O’Rourke, 344 U.S. 334, 73 S.Ct. 302, 97 L.Ed. 367 (1952).

Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 323 F.2d 996 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

323 F.2d 996 (Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related