US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, 298 U. S. 110 (1936)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 298 U. S. 110 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110 (1936)

The Arizona v. Anelich

No. 667

Argued April 1, 2, 1936

Decided April 27, 1936

298 U.S. 110


1. The provisions of the Jones Act allowing seamen a common law form of remedy for injuries in which "all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common law right or remedy in case of personal injury to railway employees shall apply," and granting like remedies to the personal representatives of seamen when injuries result in death, became integral parts of the maritime law and are to be construed liberally and in harmony with the principles of that law as they were before the enactment. P. 298 U. S. 118.

2. Under the maritime law, prior to the Jones Act, a seaman injured in the course of duty on navigable waters, due to negligence in providing a defective appliance for use in his work on the ship, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 298 U. S. 111

had a cause of action for indemnity against the ship or owner, to which assumption of risk was not a defense. P. 298 U. S. 110.

3. Construing the Jones Act in harmony with this principle, assumption of risk is not a defense to an action brought under that Act for the death of a seaman caused by the negligence of the master in providing a defective appliance. From the failure of the Employers' Liability Act to abolish this defense in cases of injury or death of railway employees not caused by violations of the Safety Appliance Act there cannot be inferred an intention in the Jones Act to introduce the defense into the maritime law. P. 298 U. S. 123.

183 Wash. 467, 49 P.2d 3, affirmed.

Certiorari, 297 U.S. 701, to review the affirmance of a judgment recovered by the administratrix of the estate of a deceased seaman in an action for wrongful death attributed to a defective appliance for stopping a winch used for hauling in fish nets aboard ship. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 298 U. S. 115

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™