From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. U.S. Shipping Bd. Emergency F. Corp.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Mar 19, 1928
24 F.2d 963 (2d Cir. 1928)

Summary

In Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency F. Corp., 2 Cir., 24 F.2d 963, involving a maritime tort, we relied upon Belden v. Chase in sustaining an instruction that the plaintiff could not recover if guilty of contributory negligence.

Summary of this case from W.E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. United Fruit Co.

Opinion

No. 194.

March 19, 1928.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

Suit by John Johnson against the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation. Judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Silas B. Axtell, of New York City (Myron Scott, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

William A. De Groot, U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y. (Edgar G. Wandless, and Frederick H. Cunningham, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.


This action was brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in error, who said he was an invitee — seeking employment as a ship's carpenter — on one of the defendant in error's boats, and was injured while walking on a gangplank, which he claimed was not firmly in place. The jury found against him on the issue of negligence.

The plaintiff in error assigns error for the charge of the court, which instructed the jury that, if the plaintiff in error was guilty of contributory negligence, he could not recover. The plaintiff in error now argues that this was a maritime tort, and that the maritime law controls, and therefore the contributory negligence was not an absolute bar to a recovery. We think the court correctly instructed the jury, under the authority of Belden v. Chase, 154 U.S. 674, 14 S. Ct. 264, 37 L. Ed. 1218, Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389, 22 L. Ed. 619, and Maleeny v. Standard Shipbuilding Co., 237 N.Y. 250, 142 N.E. 602. We have not overlooked the Castagna Case (C.C.A.) 280 F. 618, where, in a dictum, it was inadvertently stated the rule is different than stated in Belden v. Chase, supra.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Johnson v. U.S. Shipping Bd. Emergency F. Corp.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Mar 19, 1928
24 F.2d 963 (2d Cir. 1928)

In Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency F. Corp., 2 Cir., 24 F.2d 963, involving a maritime tort, we relied upon Belden v. Chase in sustaining an instruction that the plaintiff could not recover if guilty of contributory negligence.

Summary of this case from W.E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. United Fruit Co.
Case details for

Johnson v. U.S. Shipping Bd. Emergency F. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Mar 19, 1928

Citations

24 F.2d 963 (2d Cir. 1928)

Citing Cases

W.E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. United Fruit Co.

Belden v. Chase, supra, has been followed by the Court of Appeals of this Circuit. Guerrini v. United States,…

Johnson v. Fleet Corp.

P. 323. (4) Actions against the Fleet Corporation, begun in a state court, one by underwriters, the other by…