Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co.
356 U.S. 252 (1958)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co., 356 U.S. 252 (1958)

Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co.

No. 456

Argued March 10, 1958

Decided April 7, 1958

356 U.S. 252

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioner sued respondents under the Jones Act for damages for injuries sustained while being transferred at sea from a tug to a "Texas tower" being secured to the ocean bed at its ultimate location as a radar warning station. The District Court indicated that the evidence created a fact question as to whether he was a member of the crew of any vessel, but directed a verdict for respondents on the round that petitioner's exclusive remedy was under the Defense Bases Act. The Court of Appeals held that the Defense Bases Act did not provide the exclusive remedy for a crew member, but it affirmed the District Court's judgment on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to create a fact question as to whether petitioner was a crew member.

Held:

1. The remedy under the Jones Act created for a member of the crew of any vessel is saved by 42 U.S.C. § 1654. P. 356 U. S. 253.

2. Petitioner's evidence presented an evidentiary basis for a jury's finding whether or not petitioner was a member of a crew of any vessel. P. 356 U. S. 253.

245 F.2d 437 reversed and case remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner brought this suit in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He sought damages under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, for injuries suffered while being transferred at sea in a "Navy life ring" from a tug to a Texas tower which the respondents, his employers, were constructing under a contract with the Government on Georges Bank, 110 miles east of Cape Cod.

Page 356 U. S. 253

The District Court directed a verdict for the respondents at the close of the petitioner's case. The trial judge indicated his view that the evidence created a fact question on the issue as to whether the petitioner was a crew member, but held that the petitioner's exclusive remedy was under the Defense Bases Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1651

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.