Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
A jury awarded damages to petitioner, a longshoreman, for personal injuries sustained while working on a ship owned and operated by respondent. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the trial court had erred in refusing to charge the jury that petitioner was not entitled to any recovery if he voluntarily chose to use a passageway known by him to be unsafe and if there was any other passageway known by him to be safe. Held: Certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.
Philip F. Di Costanzo for petitioner.
Eugene Underwood and William M. Kimball for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. * We hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to charge respondent's request [355 U.S. 20, 21] No. 12. The petitioner's alleged choice of a more dangerous route did not, under the proofs, operate to bar recovery as a matter of law. The jury was properly instructed that the petitioner's negligence, if any, was to be considered in mitigation of damages under the rule applicable in actions for personal injuries arising from maritime torts. Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 408 -409; cf. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U.S. 424 .
For reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 524 , MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.
[For memorandum of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE BURTON and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER, see ante, p. 19.]
[ Footnote * ] [Amended, post, p. 910, to provide for remand of the case to the Court of Appeals.]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 355 U.S. 20
Docket No: No. 350
Decided: October 21, 1957
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)