Legal Opinion

Mikkelson v. Pacific S. S. Co.

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided December 31, 1930No. 20436PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. The OsceolaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Baltimore Steamship Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Panama Railroad v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
  5. Mahler v. EbySupreme Court of the United States · 1924

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. O'DONOGHUE v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Kittilson v. FordCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979
  3. Kristiansen v. National Dredging Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1933
  4. Rodich v. American Barge Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1947
  5. Kittilson v. FordCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API