Masjulis v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtChase, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Since the plaintiff was using the rope under orders, it was error to submit the question of assumption of risk to the jury. Cricket Steamship Co. v. Parry (C. C. A.) 263 F. 523; Panama Railroad Co. v. Johnson (C. C. A.). 289 F. 964.
As was pointed out in the Johnson Case, supra, there is such an obligation upon a seaman to obey the orders of his superiors that he cannot have the freedom of action which lies at the base of the doctrine of assumption of risk as applied to workmen on land. On this subject the following language is quoted from the opinion in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Panama R. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Storgard v. France & Canada S. S. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
- Cricket S. S. Co. v. ParryCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
3Cited by8 opinions
- Laurice v. Cox v. Esso Shipping CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
- Holm v. Cities Service Transp. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- United States v. BoykinCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1931
- Dixon v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1954
- Reskin v. Minnesota-Atlantic Transit Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.