Aho v. United States

Full title: Andrew Anthony AHO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Mar 23, 1967

374 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1967)

Opinion

No. 23866.

March 23, 1967.

Charles R. Maloney, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Richard S. Salzman, Morton Hollander, Jack H. Weiner, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Barefoot Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Louis C. LaCour, U.S. Atty., for appellee.

Before BROWN, MOORE,^_ and BELL, Circuit Judges.

_ Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Presented again is the question whether Yaka,¹ which rejected literal application of the exclusive liability section as to private shipowners, 33 U.S.C.A. § 905, permits the same result as to seamen on public vessels under a similar exclusive provision in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 757(b), in a suit under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 781-790.

1 Reed v. SS Yaka, 1963, 373 U.S. 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448, 1963 AMC 1373.

In Suhar v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 952, without saying so we necessarily rejected this contention which had been specifically urged. The result was the same in our earlier decision in Jarvis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 799, cert. denied, 1965, 382 U.S. 831, 86 S.Ct. 70, 15 L.Ed.2d 75. Since then two things of significance have occurred. The Supreme Court in Amell v. United States, 1966, 384 U.S. 158, 86 S.Ct. 1384, 16 L.Ed.2d 445, 447, expressly recognized the continuing vitality of its earlier decisions² on which we specifically relied. More recently and more important it has in effect given specific approval to Jarvis. See United States v. Demko, 1966, 385 U.S. 149, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258, 261, note 4.

2 Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051; Patterson v. United States, 359 U.S. 495, 79 S.Ct. 936, 3 L.Ed.2d 971.

Affirmed.