Jacob v. New York City
315 U.S. 752 (1992)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Jacob v. New York City, 315 U.S. 752 (1942)

Jacob v. New York City

No. 589

Argued March 6, 1942

Decided March 30, 1992

315 U.S. 752

Syllabus

l. Contributory negligence and assumption of risk are not available as defenses to suits under the Jones Act; the admiralty doctrine of comparative negligence applies. P. 315 U. S. 755.

2. Upon the evidence, the plaintiff in this action under the Jones Act for personal injuries suffered in a fall caused by his use of a defective wrench, which he had asked his superior to replace, was entitled to have the case submitted to the jury on the issue whether his injuries resulted from defect or insufficiency, due to the employer's negligence, in it appliances, and the dismissal of his complaint was a denial of his statutory right of jury trial. P. 315 U. S. 756.

3. Under the Jones Act, it is a duty of the employer to furnish reasonably safe and suitable simple tools when he is aware that those in use are defective; the employee need not furnish his own simple tools when he find those of the employer defective. P. 315 U. S. 758.

4. The trial court's exclusion of opinion evidence as to the best type of tool for the work was not error warranting reversal. P. 315 U. S. 758.

119 F.2d 800 reversed.

Certiorari, 314 U.S. 595, to review the affirmance of a judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for personal injuries under the Jones Act.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw 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.