Birks v. United Fruit Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Rigdon v. Roberts

    270 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that loss of future earning capacity is "always uncertain" and is "left largely to the jury's discretion"

    To prove direct liability under the Jones Act in an assault case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either knew or should have known of the crew member's felonious and criminal propensities. Birks v. United Fruit Co., 48 F.2d 656, 657 (D.C.N.Y. 1930). An employer may also be liable under the direct theory for other acts of direct negligence, such as allowing fights among the crew, failing to enforce rules prohibiting alcohol and drugs on board, or otherwise failing to provide for an employee's safety.

  2. Wilson v. Transocean Airlines

    121 F. Supp. 85 (N.D. Cal. 1954)   Cited 64 times
    Reviewing legislative history

    It is also significant that the earliest decisions ruling upon the question of the forum in which the right of action granted by the Act should be enforced stated categorically that the suit must be in admiralty. See Dall v. Cosulich Line, D.C.S.D.N Y 1928, 1936 A.M.C. 359; Birks v. United Fruit Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1930, 48 F.2d 656; Echavarria v. Atlantic Caribbean Steam Nav. Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1935, 10 F. Supp. 677; In re Rademaker's Estate (The Mohawk), 1938, 166 Misc. 201, 2 N YS.2d 309, 1938 A.M.C. 396. In the Dall case, the plaintiff in a suit at law asserted both a right of action founded on Italian law and the right of action given by Section 1 of the Death on the High Seas Act.

  3. Iafrate v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique

    106 F. Supp. 619 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)   Cited 30 times

    Thus, Section 1, which gives a right of action for damages from death caused by wrongful act on the high seas, provides: The following cases seem to be in agreement with the views here expressed: Dall v. Cosulich Line, 1936 A.M.C. 359; The Silverpalm, 9 Cir., 79 F.2d 598; Birks v. United Fruit Co., D.C., 48 F.2d 656; Egan v. Donaldson Atlantic Line, D.C., 37 F. Supp. 909; Moran v. United States, D.C., 102 F. Supp. 275; Echavarria v. Atlantic Caribbean Steam Nav. Co., D.C., 10 F. Supp. 677; The Vestris, 2 Cir., 53 F.2d 847. In apparent disagreement with this conclusion are Choy v. Pan American Airways Co., 1941 A.M.C. 483; Batkiewicz v. Seas Shipping Co., D.C., 53 F. Supp. 802; The Saturnia, 1936 A.M.C. 469.

  4. The Four Sisters

    75 F. Supp. 399 (D. Mass. 1947)   Cited 16 times
    Allowing for the possibility that Limitation Act applies to DOHSA claim

    The court ruled under the circumstances that the administrator could proceed at law under the Jones Act for damages for the pecuniary loss to the father but could not proceed at law to recover on behalf of the sister the pecuniary loss she suffered as the result of her brother's death. Middleton v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 326; cf. Birks v. United Fruit Co., D.C., 48 F.2d 656; Egan v. Donaldson Atlantic Line, D.C., 37 F. Supp. 909. It is true there was in this proceeding a plurality of claims and, under the rule of Langnes v. Green, supra, the petitioner here had a right to have both the claims of the father and sister heard in admiralty.

  5. Egan v. Donaldson Atlantic Line

    37 F. Supp. 909 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)   Cited 7 times

    The Circuit Court of Appeals. Ninth Circuit, in The Silverpalm, 79 F.2d 598, at page 600, has so construed section 764, stating: "Furthermore, it [lower court order] affirmatively purports to permit the administrators `to file suit in personam at law,' although 46 U.S.C.A. § 764, supra, permits suits under foreign law for such deaths only to be `maintained in an appropriate action in admiralty'". Plaintiffs concede that in construing section 761, the companion section of section 764, the word "may" used therein is mandatory and not permissive. Echavarria v. Atlantic Caribbean Steam Nav. Co., D.C., 10 F. Supp. 677; Birks v. United Fruit Co., Inc., D.C., 48 F.2d 656. It would appear that a similar construction should be given to Section 764 in actions where the plaintiffs are utilizing the section to avoid limitation of liability. No sound reason exists for construing these two sections differently.

  6. Birks v. United Fruit Co.

    48 F.2d 655 (S.D.N.Y. 1930)   Cited 1 times

    Motion granted with leave to amend. See also 48 F.2d 656. COXE, District Judge.

  7. Steeley v. Kurn

    347 Mo. 74 (Mo. 1941)   Cited 3 times

    The only sense in which the engineer was acting in the course of his employment was that he had received an order from Green which it was his duty to obey — in other words that he did a willful act wholly outside the scope of his employment while his employment was going on." [Davis v. Green, 260 U.S. 349, l.c. 351, 352; C. O. Ry. Co. v. Bryant, 280 U.S. 404; Dirks v. United Fruit Co., 48 F.2d 656.] Of course, Murphy was in the line of his duty and in furtherance of the master's business while lifting the rod.