![]() ![]() There is nothing in the legislative history of the Jones Act to indicate that its words 'in the course of his employment' do not mean what they say or that they were intended to be restricted to injuries occurring on navigable waters. The term 'seamen' has been interpreted to embrace those employed on a vessel in rendering the services customarily performed by seamen, including stevedores while temporarily engaged in stowing cargo on the vessel. ยงยง 51-60, which gives to railroad employees a right of recovery for injuries resulting from the negligence of their employer, its agents or employees. ![]() The Act thus made applicable to seamen injured in the course of their employment the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. , the question being one of importance in the application of the Jones Act. ![]() The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit modified the judgment, 127 F.2d 901, by allowing an additional award for maintenance and cure, but held that no recovery could be had under the Jones Act for injury to a seaman not occurring on navigable waters. The district court dismissed the cause of action under the Jones Act and granted an award for wages. While he was so engaged the alleged negligence of a fellow employee caused a heavy counterweight, used to support the gasket, to fall on petitioner and cause the injuries of which he complains. ![]() As her cargo was being discharged through a conduit passing from the hatch and connected at its outer end to a land pipe by means of a gasket, petitioner was ordered by the master to go ashore to assist in repair of the gasket connection. Petitioner was a deckhand on respondent's vessel 'Michigan', engaged in transporting sand from Indiana to Illinois over the navigable waters of Lake Michigan. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |