Legal Opinion · Dissent
Lindgren v. Tugboat Dalzellable, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 28, 1966Published
1Dissent
Ughetta, Acting P. J.,
dissents and votes to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: The substantive rights and obligations of the parties to this suit are measured by the maritime law, not the common law of this State (Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U. S. 372, 383; Aho v. Jacobsen, 249 F. 2d 309, 311; Maher v. Atlantic Stevedoring Co., 199 App. Div. 630, 635; Kennedy v. Cunard S. S. Co., 197 App. Div. 459, 467, affd. 235 N. Y. 604). Under the maritime law, the shipowner is under no duty to provide safe means of access or egress beyond the gangway to seamen on shore leave…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Atlantic Transport Co. of W. Va. v. ImbrovekSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Kennedy v. Cunard Steamship Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Matter of Ross v. . HowiesonNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Dangovich v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1963
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.