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.
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 557, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. v. N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats.; and No. 654, N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats. v. Albanese et al., also on petitions for writs of certiorari to the same court.
346 F.2d 481, certiorari denied in Nos. 557 and 654; and in No. 523 certiorari granted, judgment reversed and District Court judgment reinstated.
Philip F. DiCostanzo and Robert Klonsky for petitioner in No. 523. Sidney A. Schwartz and Joseph Arthur Cohen for petitioner in No. 557.
Edmund F. Lamb for respondent N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats. in Nos. 523 and 557 and for petitioner in No. 654.
Arthur J. Mandell for the American Trial Lawyers Association Admiralty Section, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition in No. 523.
PER CURIAM.
The motion of the American Trial Lawyers Association for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. The petition for certiorari in No. 523, Albanese v. N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats., is also granted.
We believe that the judgment of the Court of Appeals setting aside the judgment for petitioner Albanese on the ground that the trial court incorrectly charged the jury on the issue of negligence is erroneous. Gutierrez v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 373 U.S. 206 . [382 U.S. 283, 284]
In its opinion the Court of Appeals also stated that the District Court incorrectly instructed the jury as to the applicability of the Safety and Health Regulations for LongshoringFn on the question of the shipowner's liability. But we do not read that court's opinion as making this an independent ground for ordering a new trial. So we not only reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the case of Albanese but reinstate the District Court's judgment in his favor.
The petitions in No. 557, International Terminal Operating Co. v. N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats.; and No. 654, N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats. v. Albanese, are denied.
Fn [382 U.S. 283, 284] 29 CFR 9.1 et seq. (1963), now 29 CFR 1504.1 (1965), promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the authority of Public Law 85-742, 72 Stat. 835, 33 U.S.C. 941 (1964 ed.). [382 U.S. 283, 285]
Response sent, thank you
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: 382 U.S. 283
Docket No: No. 523
Decided: December 13, 1965
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)