TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

William Joseph Hanlon, Jr. v. Waterman Steamship Corporation

William Joseph HANLON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent

Hanlon v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 265 F.2d 206 (2d Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 2, 1959
Docket
No. 25363_1
Judges
Medina, Hincks, Mathes
Citations
265 F.2d 2061959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5112

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

It was not contested below, nor is it upon this appeal, that the United States owned and operated the S. S. Bucyrus Victory, upon which the alleged assault upon the plaintiff seaman by a fellow seaman took place. The defendant was not an operating agent of the United States; its only connection with the vessel arose from its general agency contract with the United States which required [Article 3(d)] that “[t]he General Agent shall procure and make available to the Master for engagement by him the officers and men required to fill the complement of the vessel (i. e., the Bucyrus Victory).” Since the defendant was not the owner, clearly it was not liable under a Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688 , claim. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Mc-Allister, 337 U.S. 783 , 69 S.Ct. 1317 , 93 L.Ed. 1692 . And this holding is equally conclusive against the plaintiff on his second and third causes of action (negligence in providing medical aid and maintenance and cure, respectively) which lie only against an owner.

On appeal, however, the plaintiff argues that its first cause of action also states a common law claim in that the defendant was negligent in the discharge of its contractual obligation to provide suitable seamen for engagement by the Master. But in this case, the defendant was acting under the General Agency Contract with the United States, as indeed the complaint expressly alleges. For harm so caused a third person such as the plaintiff, the United States as principal would be liable. And under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 745 , it is provided: “Where a remedy is provided by this chapter it shall hereafter be exclusive of any other action by reason of the same subject matter against the agent * * * whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” Williams v. United States, 4 Cir., 228 F.2d 129, 132-133 , certiorari denied 351 U.S. 986 , 76 S.Ct. 1054 , 100 L.Ed. 1499 ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Agwilines, Inc., 5 Cir., 195 F.2d 459 ; Richardson v. American President Lines, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 144 F.Supp. 641 ; Arnold v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 162 F.Supp. 58 .

Brady v. Roosevelt Steamship Co., 317 U.S. 575 , 63 S.Ct. 425 , 87 L.Ed. 471 , relied on by the plaintiff, was decided seven years before the quoted language was added to the statute by the amendment of December 13, 1950, 64 Stat. 1112 . And for the suggestion that the plaintiff, as a third-party beneficiary, had a claim for breach by the defendant of the General Agency Contract, we find no support at all. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 , 48 S.Ct. 134 , 72 L.Ed. 290 ; 5 Corbin on Contracts § 776.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1962: 11964: 11965: 11968: 11969: 11973: 11974: 21978: 12013: 119622026peak 1974 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Smith v. United States346 F.2d 449 (4th Cir. 1965)
  2. Wood v. Standard Products Co., Inc.456 F. Supp. 1098 (E.D. Va. 1978)
  3. Doyle v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.504 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1974)
  4. Edward C. Carter v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.411 F.2d 1185 (2d Cir. 1969)
  5. American Petroleum & Transport, Inc. v. City of New York737 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2013)
  6. Cabales ex rel. Cabales v. United States300 F. Supp. 1323 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)

Most recent

  1. American Petroleum & Transport, Inc. v. City of New York737 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2013)
  2. Wood v. Standard Products Co., Inc.456 F. Supp. 1098 (E.D. Va. 1978)
  3. Alvin G. Doyle v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, No. 74-2450 Summary Calendar504 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1974)
  4. Doyle v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.504 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1974)
  5. Steudler v. ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY361 F. Supp. 1149 (W.D. Wash. 1973)
  6. Edward C. Carter v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.411 F.2d 1185 (2d Cir. 1969)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927) 402
Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister, 337 U.S. 783 (1949) 274
Brady v. Roosevelt S.S. Co., 317 U.S. 575 (1943) 166
Williams v. United States, 228 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1955) 39
Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Agwilines, Inc., 195 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1952) 10
Richardson v. Am. President Lines, Ltd., 144 F. Supp. 641 (S.D.N.Y. 1956) 4
Arnold v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 162 F. Supp. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 1957) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list