Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Alpha Steamship Corp. v. Cain

Alpha S.S. Corp. v. Cain, 281 U.S. 642 (1930)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1930-06-02
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Alpha Steamship Corp. v. Cain. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
49 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Jones Act An assault by a superior who is authorized to direct a seaman's work, committed for the purpose of reprimanding the seaman for tardiness and compelling him to work, constitutes negligence of the employer within the meaning of § 1 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act and is actionable against the employer under that Act as made applicable to seamen by § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act. 281 U.S. at 643 (citing Jamison v. Encarnacion, ante, p. 635)
  2. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Jones Act An assault by a superior officer upon a seaman, committed to reprimand him for tardiness and compel him to work, is negligence within the meaning of the Federal Employers' Liability Act as incorporated by § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act; the Circuit Court of Appeals' contrary view that recovery must rest on general maritime law apart from those Acts is controlled by Jamison v. Encarnacion. 281 U.S. at 644
ALPHA STEAMSHIP CORPORATIONv. CAIN,281 U.S. 642(1930)
50 S.Ct. 443
ALPHA STEAMSHIP CORPORATION ET AL.v. CAIN.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 457.
Argued April 29, 30, 1930.
Decided May 26, 1930.
An assault on a seaman by a superior authorized to direct his work and who committed the assault for the purpose of reprimanding him for tardiness and compelling him to work,held, negligence of the employer within the meaning of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, and actionable against the employer under that Act as made applicable by the Merchant Marine Act.Jamisonv.Encarnacion, ante, p. 635.35 F.2d 717, affirmed.
CERTIORARI,280 U.S. 549, to review a judgment of the Circuit
Court of Appeals affirming a recovery by a seaman for injuries
resulting from an assault committed upon him by a superior aboard
ship.
Mr. Carver W. Wolfefor petitioners.Mr. Vine H. Smith, with whomMessrs. Thomas J. Cuff, MiltonPinkus, andDix W. Noelwere on the brief, 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 hisPage 643work 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 § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and the Federal Employers' Liability Act,45 U.S.C. § 51-59, did not apply and held defendants liable under the general maritime law without regard to these Acts. But inJamisonv.Encarnacion, decided this day,ante, p. 635, we hold that such an assault is negligence within the meaning of § 1 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act which is made available to seamen by § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act. The ruling in that case controls in this. We need not examine the grounds upon which the Circuit Court of Appeals put its decision.Judgment affirmed.