Legal Opinion
Mietla v. WARNER COMPANY
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 22, 1975No. Civ. A. 73-1046PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JOSEPH S. LORD, III,.Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, employed by defendant as a “barge attendant,” brought this action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 et seq., to recover for injuries suffered in the course of employment. Defendant has moved for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff was not a “seaman” within the meaning of the Jones Act at the time of his accident. We shall deny the motion.
The Jones Act provides that “any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Offshore Co. v. RobisonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
- South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. BassettSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- International Stevedoring Co. v. HavertySupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Swanson v. Marra Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Baker v. Pacific Far East Lines, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1978
- Carolyn Searcy, Administratrix of the Estate of William A. Searcy, Deceased v. E. T. Slider, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
- Berry v. American Commercial Barge LinesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1983
- Reecer v. McKinnon Bridge Co.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1990
- Davis v. ForexDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.