Smith v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.

E.D. New York

Smith v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.

159 F. Supp. 459, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2658

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedApril 2, 1957

DocketCiv. 16826

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 F. Supp. 459 (Smith v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 459, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2658 (E.D.N.Y. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

INCH, Chief Judge.

Action by longshoreman against owner of vessel for personal injuries due to its negligence. Defendant moves to dismiss complaint on ground that, because of plaintiff’s acceptance of compensation [460]*460under Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., his rights against defendant have been assigned to his employer and its insurer.

In view of the fact that insurer of plaintiff's employer is also insurer of defendant and the resultant conflict of interests between plaintiff’s employer and its insurer and plaintiff, the assignment of plaintiff’s rights against defendant to his employer and its insurer does not preclude plaintiff from bringing this action and enforcing those rights therein (Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U.S. 525, 76 S.Ct. 946, 100 L.Ed. 1387). Therefore, defendant’s motion is denied.

Settle order.

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

INCH, Chief Judge.

Action by longshoreman against owner of vessel for personal injuries due to its negligence. Defendant moves to dismiss complaint on ground that, because of plaintiff’s acceptance of compensation [460]*460under Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., his rights against defendant have been assigned to his employer and its insurer.

In view of the fact that insurer of plaintiff's employer is also insurer of defendant and the resultant conflict of interests between plaintiff’s employer and its insurer and plaintiff, the assignment of plaintiff’s rights against defendant to his employer and its insurer does not preclude plaintiff from bringing this action and enforcing those rights therein (Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U.S. 525, 76 S.Ct. 946, 100 L.Ed. 1387). Therefore, defendant’s motion is denied.

Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 F. Supp. 459, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-isthmian-lines-inc-nyed-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack