Home - Site Index - Site Search/Archive - Help
Member Center - Log Out
|NYTimes.com > Washington|
281 U.S. 642
ALPHA S. S. CORPORATION et al.
Argued April 29, 30, 1930.
Decided May 26, 1930.
Mr. Carver W. Wolfe, of New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. Vine H. Smith, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent was a seaman employed as a fireman on the American steamship Alpha navigating the high seas. The corporation petitioner owned and operated the vessel, and the other petitioners were in possession of her. Respondent sued petitioners in the federal court for the Southern District of New York to recover damages for personal injuries caused by an assault upon him by his superior, one Jackson, an assistant engineer in charge of the engine room. The complaint charged and the evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding that Jackson was authorized by defendants to direct plaintiff about his [281 U.S. 642, 643] work and that, for the purpose of reprimanding him for tardiness and compelling him to work, Jackson struck plaintiff with a wrench and seriously injured him. That was the basis of fact upon which the jury under the charge of the court was authorized to find for plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $12,000, and the judgment thereon was affirmed in the Circuit Court of Appeals.
That court expressed the opinion (35 F.(2d) 717, 721) that section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, 46 U. S. C., 688 (46 USCA 688), and the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U. S. C., 51-59 (45 USCA 51-59), did not apply, and held defendants liable under the general maritime law without regard to these acts. But in Jamison v. Encarnaction, 281 U.S. 635 , 50 S. Ct. 440, 74 L. Ed. -, decided this day, we hold that such an assault is negligence within the meaning of section 1 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA 51), which is made available to seamen by section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act (46 USCA 688). The ruling in that case controls in this. We need not examine the grounds upon which the Circuit Court of Appeals put its decision.