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

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
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 : www.chanroblesbar.com 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 www.chanrobles.com


ROMERO V. INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL OPERATING CO., 358 U. S. 354 (1959)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 358 U. S. 354 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959)

Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.

No. 3

Argued March 13, 1958

Restored to the calendar for reargument May 19, 1958

Reargued October 22-23, 1958

Decided February 24, 1959

358 U.S. 354

Syllabus

Petitioner, a Spanish subject, was employed on board a ship of Spanish flag and registry, owned by a Spanish corporation, for a voyage beginning and ending in Spain. He was injured while the ship was in American territorial waters, and he filed suit on the law side of a Federal District Court in New York. He claimed damages under the Jones Act and under the general maritime law for unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and negligence against his Spanish employer and a New York corporation which acted as its husbanding agent in New York. Damages for negligence under the general maritime law were claimed against two other American corporations engaged in operations related to loading freight in New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

1. Jurisdiction under the Jones Act was adequately alleged. P. 358 U. S. 359.

2. Jurisdiction on the law side of claims based on the general maritime law is not granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pp. 358 U. S. 359-380.

3. There was jurisdiction, "pendent" to jurisdiction under the Jones Act, to determine whether the claims against the Spanish corporation based on general maritime law stated a cause of action. Pp. 358 U. S. 380-381.

4. There was jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over the claims under the general maritime law against the three American corporations. P. 358 U. S. 381.

5. Neither the Jones Act nor the general maritime law of the United States is applicable to the claims against the foreign shipowner. Pp. 358 U. S. 381-384.

6. The claims for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure against the husbanding agent were properly dismissed in light of the District Court's findings of fact. Pp. 358 U. S. 384-385. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 358 U. S. 355

7. The case must be remanded for consideration of the claims against the three American corporation based on negligence. P. 358 U. S. 385.

244 F.2d 409, judgment vacated and cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED