US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

1. The provisions of the Employers' Liability Act specifically imposing liability for injuries caused by negligence of officers and fellow employees, or by defects in equipment due to negligence, were adopted for the maritime law by the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 388. P. 298 U. S. 128.

2. Assumption of risk is not a defense to a suit brought under the Jones Act by one who is a seaman according to the maritime law, for personal injuries resulting from negligent failure of the master to provide safe appliances or a safe place in which to work. The Arizona, ante, p. 298 U. S. 110, followed. P. 298 U. S. 129.

3. This rule applies although the injured seaman was employed on a coasting vessel which was in port at the time of his accident. P. 298 U. S. 129.

4. It is unnecessary to decide in this case whether employees on vessel who are not seamen according to the maritime law, but who have been given the status of seamen for the purpose of enabling them to bring suit under the Jones Act, see International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U. S. 50, are entitled to the immunity from the defense of assumption of risk accorded by the maritime law to seamen. P. 298 U. S. 130. chanrobles.com-red

Page 298 U. S. 125

5. Contributory negligence is not a defense to a suit brought either under the Jones Act or under the maritime law for injuries attributable to negligently defective equipment. It is ground only for apportionment of the damages. P. 298 U. S. 130.

4 Cal.2d 313, 48 P.2d 678, affirmed.

Certiorari, 297 U.S. 701, to review the affirmance of a judgment for damages in an action by a seaman who was injured by falling into a hatch. chanrobles.com-red

Page 298 U. S. 126