Jones v. Gould Steamship & Industrials, Ltd.
District Court, D. Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
SOPER, District Judge.
There is no material dispute as to the manner in which the accident occurred. The libelant at the time was the foreman in charge of the work of discharging a cargo of coal from' the steamship, and had been so engaged for two or three days prior to the accident. Although he had charge of the work, and a part of the work was discharging the coal from the space between-decks, he had not been in this space before the accident, but had contented him'self with supervising the work of discharge from the de.ck.
On the night in question, the work had been going on between-decks…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Ross v. Steamship ZeelandCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1957
- Robert Morales v. City of GalvestonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
- Tysko v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Elzey v. Boston Metals Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
- Jones v. Gould Steamships & Industrials, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.