Law Commons^™

Admiralty- Shipowner's Right To Indemnification For Loss Caused By Latently Defective Gear Supplied By Nonnegligent Stevedoring-Compnay, John W. Erickson

Michigan Law Review

Defendant stevedoring company contracted to perform stevedoring services for plaintiff shipowner. Pursuant to its agreement to supply gear for the job, the stevedoring company supplied a latently defective rope, the breaking of which caused injury to a longshoreman, an employee of the stevedoring company. The longshoreman obtained a judgment against the shipowner under the doctrine of unseaworthiness, and in a separate action the shipowner sought indemnification from the stevedoring company. The district court, finding the stevedoring company not negligent, denied recovery. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. On certiorari to the United States Supreme …

Federal Jurisdiction-Federal Civil Procedure-Right To Jury Trial Of Seaman's Claim For Maintenance And Cure Where Joined With Claim Under Jones Act, Edwin A. Howe Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff seaman, having been injured while in the employ of defendant shipowner, filed an action in federal district court. Plaintiff invoked the court's federal-question jurisdiction alone, under section 1331 of the federal Judicial Code. He alleged claims for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure, and demanded jury trial of all three counts. The trial court sustained the demand as to the first two counts, but ordered that the claim for maintenance and cure be tried to the judge alone, sitting as a court of admiralty. On appeal from the order denying jury trial …

Admiralty - Unseaworthiness - Recovery For Injuries Resulting From Condition Arising After Commencement Of The Voyage, John L. Peschel

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, a member of the crew of a fishing vessel, sustained injuries while disembarking when he slipped on a slimy substance on the ship railing. In an action brought against the shipowner, the seaman sought recovery on three alternative grounds: first, under the Jones Act based upon negligence; second, under general maritime law based upon the obligation of the shipowner to furnish a seaworthy vessel; third, under general maritime law for maintenance and cure. Judgment was entered pursuant to a verdict limiting the seaman to recovery for maintenance and cure. On the seaman's appeal from the adverse verdict on the …

Admiralty - Warranty Of Seaworthiness - Longshoreman's Choice Of Remedies, Richard E. Young

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, employee of a stevedoring company hired to unload defendant's ship, was injured while operating a defective chisel truck in the ship's hold. The truck belonged to and was operated, maintained and brought aboard by the stevedoring company, the ship having no similar equipment. Furthermore, the stevedoring company was assumed to be aware of the defect prior to the accident. Plaintiff brought suit for damages against the shipowner alleging unseaworthiness, and the shipowner impleaded the stevedoring company as a third-party defendant. On motion by the defendants for summary judgment, held, motion denied. The shipowner is liable on an absolute …

Admiralty - Jones Act - Applicability To Dredge Employees As Seaman, Ross Kipka

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner, a laborer, was employed by respondent on a canal digging project. His duties were those of a handyman on respondent's dredge, which was temporarily attached to shore, and his work consisted of carrying supplies from shore to the dredge, cleaning the dredge, and doing errands ashore. The employee was not a member of a maritime union, but was a member of a laborers' union. He lived at home, worked on an eight hour shift, and brought his meals to his place of employment. He was not subject to the supervision of the officer of the dredge but received his …

Admiralty- Conflict Of Laws - Application Of The Jones Act, Robert B. Fiske, Jr. S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Admiralty traditionally did not give a seaman a right of action for negligence unless it could be attributed to the unseaworthiness of the vessel. An injured seaman was limited to two remedies: an action for maintenance and cure, or an action based on -unseaworthiness. To remedy this situation, Congress in 1920 passed the Jones Act. This act was framed in terms of "any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment," and gave to such seamen all the rights granted by statutes modifying or extending the common law right or remedy in cases of personal injury …

The Seaman As Ward Of The Admiralty, Martin J. Norris

Michigan Law Review

The seaman has a peculiar status in American law. He is in most instances a mature individual, sui juris, and therefore capable of entering into his own contracts but nonetheless his contractual dealings with shipmasters and owners are as carefully watched by our admiralty courts as though he were a minor or a young heir. He is in contemplation of the maritime law a ward of the admiralty courts.

The seaman's position in a legal and economic sense is unique. Singled out by the Congress of the United States as one of a class of workers requiring special consideration …

Admiralty - Right To Jury Trial In Certain Cases On Great Lakes - Maintenance And Cure Not Contract Or Tort Matter, Richard B. Barnett S.Ed..

Michigan Law Review

Libelant brought an action for maintenance and cure on the admiralty side of a federal district court in Illinois. He requested a jury trial, relying on the Act of February 20, 1845, which provides that in certain admiralty and maritime cases arising on the Great Lakes relating to any matter of contract or tort, trial shall be by jury on the demand of either party. The trial court heard the case without a jury and dismissed the libel on the merits. The court of appeals held, on appeal, that maintenance and cure was a matter of ancient and established …