|
|
The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110 (1936)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110 (1936)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 298 U.S. 105, click here.
The Arizona v. Anelich No. 667 Argued April 1, 2, 1936 Decided April 27, 1936 298 U.S. 110
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
Syllabus
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. 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, had a cause of action for indemnity against the ship or owner, to which assumption of risk was not a defense. P. 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. 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.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110 (1936) in 298 U.S. 110 298 U.S. 111–298 U.S. 115. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZKKMFXGD4XV7VV5.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110 (1936), in 298 U.S. 110, pp. 298 U.S. 111–298 U.S. 115. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZKKMFXGD4XV7VV5.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110 (1936). cited in 1936, 298 U.S. 110, pp.298 U.S. 111–298 U.S. 115. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZKKMFXGD4XV7VV5.
|