Shorter v. Bermuda & West Indies S. S. Co.

S.D. New York

Shorter v. Bermuda & West Indies S. S. Co.

57 F.2d 313, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1115

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJanuary 20, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 57 F.2d 313 (Shorter v. Bermuda & West Indies S. S. Co.) 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

Shorter v. Bermuda & West Indies S. S. Co., 57 F.2d 313, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1115 (S.D.N.Y. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, District Judge.

Motion is made by the defendant to dismiss the complaint as insufficient on its face. The suit is brought at law under the Jones Act (Act March 4, 1915, § 20, as amended by Act June 5, 1920, § 33, 46 USCA § 688). The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, an American citizen, was injured through the defendant’s negligence while working as a seaman on hoard the defendant’s ship Rosalind. The defendant is a Bermudian corporation and the Rosalind flies the flag of Bermuda. At the time of the injury, the ship was tied up at a pier in New York Harbor. The motion thus raises the question whether the Jones Act applies to 1he case of an American seaman injured while working on a foreign private ship in American waters.

In Uravic v. Jarka Co., 282 U. S. 234, 51 S. Ct. 111, 75 L. Ed. 312, the Supreme Court held that the Jones Act covered the case of an American stevedore working on a foreign vessel in American waters. The case of an American seaman carries the act one step further, but as -I read the opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes in the Uravie Case, he look the view that the act applied to such a situation, unless an exception should he made in a ease involving peculiar facts. I hold therefore that the act is applicable. This is eonirary to the decision of the Appellate Division in Clark v. Montezuma Co., 217 App. Div. 172, 216 N. Y. S. 295.

The motion to dismiss the complaint will therefore he denied.

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

PATTERSON, District Judge.

Motion is made by the defendant to dismiss the complaint as insufficient on its face. The suit is brought at law under the Jones Act (Act March 4, 1915, § 20, as amended by Act June 5, 1920, § 33, 46 USCA § 688). The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, an American citizen, was injured through the defendant’s negligence while working as a seaman on hoard the defendant’s ship Rosalind. The defendant is a Bermudian corporation and the Rosalind flies the flag of Bermuda. At the time of the injury, the ship was tied up at a pier in New York Harbor. The motion thus raises the question whether the Jones Act applies to 1he case of an American seaman injured while working on a foreign private ship in American waters.

In Uravic v. Jarka Co., 282 U. S. 234, 51 S. Ct. 111, 75 L. Ed. 312, the Supreme Court held that the Jones Act covered the case of an American stevedore working on a foreign vessel in American waters. The case of an American seaman carries the act one step further, but as -I read the opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes in the Uravie Case, he look the view that the act applied to such a situation, unless an exception should he made in a ease involving peculiar facts. I hold therefore that the act is applicable. This is eonirary to the decision of the Appellate Division in Clark v. Montezuma Co., 217 App. Div. 172, 216 N. Y. S. 295.

The motion to dismiss the complaint will therefore he denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 F.2d 313, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shorter-v-bermuda-west-indies-s-s-co-nysd-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack