The Arizona v. Anelich
298 U.S. 110 (1936)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110 (1936)

The Arizona v. Anelich

No. 667

Argued April 1, 2, 1936

Decided April 27, 1936

298 U.S. 110

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. 298 U. S. 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,

Page 298 U. S. 111

had a cause of action for indemnity against the ship or owner, to which assumption of risk was not a defense. P. 298 U. S. 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. 298 U. S. 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.

Page 298 U. S. 115

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.