Twiddy v. Standard Marine Transport Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Twiddy v. Standard Marine Transport Services, Inc.

194 A.D.2d 421, 599 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6162

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 421 (Twiddy v. Standard Marine Transport Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Twiddy v. Standard Marine Transport Services, Inc., 194 A.D.2d 421, 599 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered October 22, 1992, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint under the Jones Act (46 USC, Appendix § 688), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, captain of a barge transporting sludge, was severely injured when an allegedly faulty light switch caused the barge to explode. Under the Jones Act, an employer of seamen, and in some circumstances, the owner of the vessel, may be liable to a seaman injured in the course of his employment. Plaintiff claims here that the mortgagee of the vessel is also liable.

In order for a mortgagee, not the holder of an equitable title, to be held to be the employer for Jones Act purposes, the mortgagee must exercise exclusive actual control over the vessel’s operations. Plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant New England had such control over the myriad details of operating the vessel as to establish a relationship sufficient to bring it within the ambit of the Act (Fitzgerald v Burbank & Co., 451 F2d 670, 677). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered October 22, 1992, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint under the Jones Act (46 USC, Appendix § 688), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, captain of a barge transporting sludge, was severely injured when an allegedly faulty light switch caused the barge to explode. Under the Jones Act, an employer of seamen, and in some circumstances, the owner of the vessel, may be liable to a seaman injured in the course of his employment. Plaintiff claims here that the mortgagee of the vessel is also liable.

In order for a mortgagee, not the holder of an equitable title, to be held to be the employer for Jones Act purposes, the mortgagee must exercise exclusive actual control over the vessel’s operations. Plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant New England had such control over the myriad details of operating the vessel as to establish a relationship sufficient to bring it within the ambit of the Act (Fitzgerald v Burbank & Co., 451 F2d 670, 677). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 421, 599 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twiddy-v-standard-marine-transport-services-inc-nyappdiv-1993.