Tom E. Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.

Second Circuit

Tom E. Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.

323 F.2d 996, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3946

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1963

Docket28158_1

StatusPublished

This text of 323 F.2d 996 (Tom E. Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tom E. Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 323 F.2d 996, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3946 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

323 F.2d 996

Tom E. RODGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79.

Docket 28158.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued October 18, 1963.

Decided October 18, 1963.

Jacob Rassner, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Alexander & Green, New York City, (Donald M. Dunn, Alfred C. Moran, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

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