Opinion · District Court, D. Massachusetts
Pickles v. F. Leyland & Co.
10 F.2d 371
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- District Court, D. Massachusetts
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts
- Date
- 1925-12-29
- Topic
- general
LOWELL, District Judge. This was a libel brought by the widow of a man employed as a cattle tender on the steamship Winifredian, a British «.ship. While helping to hoist bales of hay, he fell into the hold, receiving injuries from which he died some hours later. The accident happened on the high seas, eight miles east of Boston Lightship. The deceased was carried back to Boston, and died on shore.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Pickles v. F. Leyland & Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 3 opinions
PICKLES v. F. LEYLAND CO., (D.Mass. 1925)
10 F.2d 371
PICKLES v. F. LEYLAND CO., Limited, et al.
No. 2625.
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.
December 29, 1925.
Stephen R. Jones, of Boston, Mass. (Blodgett, Jones, Burnham Bingham, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for respondent F. Leyland Co., Limited.
Thomas Hunt, of Boston Mass., for respondent Armour Co.
William T. Snow, of Boston, Mass. (Gaston, Snow, Saltonstall Hunt, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for respondent Armour Co.
The libelant seeks to recover either from Armour Co., by whom it is alleged that the deceased was employed, or from Leyland Co., the owners of the Winifredian.
It is contended that there can be no recovery in this case, as the death occurred on land, and this court has no jurisdiction. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20,18 L. Ed. 125. The contention is sound, unless the cause of action arose at the time of the accident. In the absence of a statute, there is no recovery in the admiralty courts of the United States for death on the high seas. Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia,257 U.S. 233,42 S. Ct. 89,66 L. Ed. 210, and cases cited; The Devona (D.C.)1 F.2d 482.Page 372
There are three statutes which might be applicable to the case at bar — the statute of Massachusetts, Lord Campbell's Act, and the Act of Congress of March 30, 1920. The Massachusetts statute does not cover this case. The Sagamore, 247 F. 743, 159 C.C.A. 601.
Lord Campbell's Act might perhaps apply. See Rainey v. N.Y. Pac. S.S. Co., 216 F. 449, 132 C.C.A. 509, L.R.A. 1916A, 1149. But the suit was not brought within one year, as required by that act. St. 9 10 Vict. c. 93, § 3.
The Act of Congress of March 30, 1920, c. 111,41 Stat. 537(U.S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1251½ et seq.), gives a right of action which arises at the moment when death takes place. Hughes, Death Actions in Admiralty, 31 Yale Law Journal, p. 115 et seq., at page 120.
There is no survival of a right belonging to the deceased, as there is under some statutes. Mich. Cent. R. Co. v. Vreeland,227 U.S. 59,67,33 S. Ct. 192,57 L. Ed. 417, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176; Carolina Ry. v. Shewalter,128 Tenn. 363,161 S.W. 1136, L.R.A. 1916C, 964, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 605. It is true that under section 5 of the act (U.S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1251½d) a suit survives which is brought by an injured person who dies after its commencement. This survival, however, is not that of a cause of action, but of an action actually begun.
The cause of action in this case arose on land, and this court is without jurisdiction. Ryley v. Phila. Reading R.R. (D.C.)173 F. 839; The Kaian Maru (D.C.) 2 F.2d 121. As to Hamburg-American Packet Co. v. Gye, 207 F. 247, 124 C.C.A. 517, and The Anglo-Patagonian, 235 F. 92, 148 C.C.A. 586, see Hughes, Admiralty (2d Ed.) p. 236.
Libel dismissed.Page 372