Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Negligence (2)
- Bainbridge v. Merchants' & Miners' Transportation Co. (1)
- Baltimore (1)
- Breaches of contract (1)
- Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal v. United States (1)
-
- Carfloats (1)
- Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line (1)
- Deaths (1)
- Earle & Stoddart v. Ellerman's Wilson Line Ltd. (1)
- Federal fire statute (1)
- Hynes v. New York Central Railroad (1)
- Interstate Commerce Act (1)
- Long Island R. R. (1)
- Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (1)
- Merchant Marine Act (1)
- New York (1)
- New York Central R. R. (1)
- Pennsylvania (1)
- Proof of loss (1)
- Proper medical attention (1)
- Repairs (1)
- Seamen (1)
- Seaworthiness (1)
- Steamships (1)
- The No. 37 (1)
- Tugs (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Admiralty- Loss Of Goods - Statutory Exemption Of Owner Of Vessel From Liability
Admiralty- Loss Of Goods - Statutory Exemption Of Owner Of Vessel From Liability
Michigan Law Review
Through the negligence of the chief engineer in putting new coal on top of old coal in a temporary bunker the steamship Galileo was rendered unseaworthy at the time the voyage commenced, catching fire and sinking. The cargo was lost. The plaintiff, cargo owner, sued the owner-operator or the ship in the federal District Court for southern New York for breach of contract to deliver at destination. On certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals the Supreme Court held, in affirming the decree dismissing the libel, that the defendant was relieved from liability under the federal fire statute which …
Carriers -Terminal And Carfloat Bridge - Whether "Terminal" Facilities Or "Interchange" Facilities
Carriers -Terminal And Carfloat Bridge - Whether "Terminal" Facilities Or "Interchange" Facilities
Michigan Law Review
The New York Central R. R. brought a suit in admiralty to recover damages to its carfloat No. 37 resulting from a collision occasioned solely by the negligence of the Long Island R. R.'s tug Talisman and those in charge of her. At the time of the collision the carfloat No. 37 was moored in a carfloat bridge of the Long Island's terminal at Long Island City where it had been received in connection with the transportation in interstate commerce of freight cars and freight. The New York Central had received a notice that the Long Island would not be …
Admiralty-Venue Of Action Brought In State Court Under Jones Act
Admiralty-Venue Of Action Brought In State Court Under Jones Act
Michigan Law Review
The plaintiff brought suit in a county court of Pennsylvania to to recover damages for injuries sustained by her while a member of the steamship crew of the defendant. The action was based on the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 which provided: "Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located." Defendant corporation moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction since defendant's principal office was in Baltimore. The motion was granted and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court …
Admiralty- Collision- Damages Resulting From Disability Of Injured Vessels
Admiralty- Collision- Damages Resulting From Disability Of Injured Vessels
Michigan Law Review
The dredge Raritan collided with the petitioner's steam tug Integrity. It was found that both vessels were at fault, and it was ordered that the damages to each vessel should be equally apportioned between the owners. The trial court allowed petitioner the market hire of its tug for the time it was disabled while being repaired. The Circuit Court of Appeals excluded this item. The petitioner did not use its vessels for hire generally. Nor was it shown that the vessel would have been let if it could have been chartered. Three tugs were used in the business of towing …
Torts-Duty To Seamen-Jones Act-Personal Injury And Negligence
Torts-Duty To Seamen-Jones Act-Personal Injury And Negligence
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, personal representative of a seaman who was said to have died as a result of his employer's failure to provide proper medical attention at sea, sued the defendant-employer for the seaman's death. Judgment for the plaintiff having been reversed in the Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground that any cause of action abated with the death of the sailor, the case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of certiorari. Held that, under the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act), the cause of action survived to the personal representative. Cortes v. Baltimore Insular …