Westerberg v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Westerberg v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.

304 N.Y. 545

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 304 N.Y. 545 (Westerberg v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Westerberg v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co., 304 N.Y. 545 (N.Y. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The breach of duty by the defendant, which allegedly caused injuries to plaintiff’s husband — injuries giving rise to her present action — occurred while the defendant’s vessel was at sea and while he, as a seaman, was employed at service on that vessel. That alleged breach of duty by the defendant was a maritime tort. As' such it cannot serve as a basis for plaintiff’s complaint which demands relief of a character not within the purview of the 1920 amendment of the Merchant Marine Act (“Jones Act”) (41 U. S. Stat. 1007; U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 688). Upon that subject the United States Supreme Court has had occasion to state — *1 This Court has specifically held that the Jones Act is to have a uniform application throughout the country, unaffected by ‘ local views of common law rules.’ ” (Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239, 244.) We pass upon no other question.

The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

Lotjghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Ftjld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The breach of duty by the defendant, which allegedly caused injuries to plaintiff’s husband — injuries giving rise to her present action — occurred while the defendant’s vessel was at sea and while he, as a seaman, was employed at service on that vessel. That alleged breach of duty by the defendant was a maritime tort. As' such it cannot serve as a basis for plaintiff’s complaint which demands relief of a character not within the purview of the 1920 amendment of the Merchant Marine Act (“Jones Act”) (41 U. S. Stat. 1007; U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 688). Upon that subject the United States Supreme Court has had occasion to state — *1 This Court has specifically held that the Jones Act is to have a uniform application throughout the country, unaffected by ‘ local views of common law rules.’ ” (Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239, 244.) We pass upon no other question.

The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

Lotjghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Ftjld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 N.Y. 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westerberg-v-tide-water-associated-oil-co-ny-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack