Mikkelson v. Pacific S. S. Co.
District Court, W.D. Washington
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the'facts as above).
It is fundamental that the purpose of the Jones Act was to, and did, create a new rule for indemnity to injured seamen. Under the old rule the ship or its owner were liable for injury to a seaman in consequence of unseaworthiness of the ship “usually consisting of wages and the expense of maintenance and cure” (Panama Railway Co. v. *125Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 395, 68 L. Ed. 748), a contractual right (Pacific Steamship Co. v. Peterson, 278 U. S. 130, 49 S. Ct. 75, 73 L. Ed. 220); but there was no liability for injuries through the negligence of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- The OsceolaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Baltimore Steamship Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Panama Railroad v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Mahler v. EbySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- O'DONOGHUE v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1965
- Kittilson v. FordCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979
- Kristiansen v. National Dredging Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1933
- Rodich v. American Barge Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1947
- Kittilson v. FordCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979