Schweitzer v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Actien Gesellschaft
New York Supreme Court
Plaintive was employed by defendant on one of its ships. He was engaged in Hamburg, Germany, for the voyage to Hew York and return. While on this journey and in the harbor of Hew York he was injured, as the result of a defect in a windlass which was being used by him and his co-employees to haul in the anchor chain when the ship left quarantine to dock in the city of Hew York. He obtained a verdict for damages for his master’s negligence.
Read the full summary
Plaintive was employed by defendant on one of its ships. He was engaged in Hamburg, Germany, for the voyage to Hew York and return. While on this journey and in the harbor of Hew York he was injured, as the result of a defect in a windlass which was being used by him and his co-employees to haul in the anchor chain when the ship left quarantine to dock in the city of Hew York. He obtained a verdict for damages for his master’s negligence. The defendant for a complete defense and bar relied and proved upon the trial a workmen’s compensation law of-the empire of Germany. The parties agreed upon…
1Opinion of the CourtKapper, J.
The Appellate Division decision herein (149 App. Div. 900), upon the appeal from the order denying the defendant’s motion to compel a reply to the separate defense contained in its answer, that the employee’s compensation law of the empire of Germany was a bar to the ¡maintenance of this action, ruled that such defense should be replied to. This decision seems to me to hold, in effect, that the law, if proved, would constitute a complete defense. This law as proved upon the trial is even more comprehensive than the statement of it quoted from the answer by Mr. Justice Burr who wrote for the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Dyke v. Erie Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Grand v. LivingstonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Hiscock v. . HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Matter of Post v. . Burger GohlkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Gould's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Piatt v. Swift & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Bradford Electric Light Co. v. ClapperCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1931
- Pensabene v. F. & J. Auditore Co.New York Supreme Court · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.