The case involved wrongful death claims arising from two airplane crashes in the Mediterranean Sea in 1954, brought by foreign executors against de Havilland Aircraft Co., Ltd. (the British manufacturer of the planes) and British Overseas Airways Corp. (the operator). De Havilland moved to quash service of process and dismiss the complaints against it, arguing it was a foreign corporation not doing business in New York and had not been properly served. The court granted the motion, holding that de Havilland's limited activities in the state—conducted through a separate subsidiary and employees who provided technical advice and maintained customer goodwill without soliciting business or making sales—were insufficient to establish its presence or amenability to service under New York law, as the corporate separation was real and the activities did not meet the threshold for jurisdiction established in precedents like International Shoe Co. v. Washington.
This case involves a Norwegian seaman injured aboard a Norwegian-flagged ship docked in Brooklyn while under contract with Norwegian owners. The plaintiff sued under the Jones Act for damages and separately sought maintenance and cure. The court dismissed the Jones Act claim, determining that the law of the flag, the Norwegian allegiance of the parties, and related factors outweighed the US location of the injury and contract, so the federal statute did not apply. It also declined jurisdiction over the maintenance claim, finding that Norwegian law provided an adequate remedy through a convenient consular forum. The motions were granted on these grounds.
The case involved an able-bodied seaman who sued the owner of the S.S. Eugenie after being discharged in Piraeus, Greece, claiming the discharge was wrongful and that earned wages were not paid at the time of discharge or within four days thereafter. The court found the discharge wrongful because there was no satisfactory evidence that the plaintiff had engaged in misconduct or incited disturbances, and it determined that wages had been offered only conditionally rather than unconditionally. Under the applicable federal statute, the court awarded the plaintiff his earned wages, statutory penalty wages for the delay in payment, and additional damages for lost wages resulting from the discharge until he obtained new employment.
This case involved a Greek seaman living in Greece who sued a Delaware corporation operating in Venezuela for damages under Venezuelan law, claiming he was discharged due to illness while working as a marine engineer on Venezuelan-flagged ships in Venezuelan waters under a contract made in Venezuela. The respondent moved to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing the U.S. court was an inconvenient forum. The court granted the dismissal, reasoning that U.S. courts should generally avoid jurisdiction over disputes between foreign seamen and foreign ships not involving U.S. laws, that all witnesses and records were in Venezuela, that Venezuelan law exclusively governed liability, and that practical factors like access to proof and the appropriateness of a forum familiar with the governing law favored adjudication in Venezuela rather than New York.
This case involved a railroad company suing the United States for the unpaid balance of freight charges on shipments of canned food, while the United States counterclaimed for damage to its separately shipped machinery. The court ruled that the United States could pursue its counterclaim for the damage even though it was not named in the bill of lading and that the consignee's letter notifying the carrier of the damage constituted timely written notice of the claim. The core reasoning relied on 49 U.S.C.A. § 20(11) granting the owner of the property the right to recover, the contractual nine-month filing requirement in the bill of lading applying to the government as a contractual term rather than a statute of limitations, and the sufficiency of the consignee's letter to provide the carrier with adequate information for investigation. The court entered a net judgment for the United States on the difference between the claims.
This case involved longshoremen employed by Nacirema Operating Co. who suffered dermatitis from contact with leaking cashew nut shell oil drums while unloading a vessel operated by American President Lines. The shipowner settled the workers' claims for unseaworthiness and negligence and then sought indemnification from Nacirema under their stevedoring contract. The court held that the shipowner was entitled to full recovery from Nacirema because the stevedoring company had contractually assumed responsibility for warning employees, providing protective equipment like gloves and salves, and taking other precautions against the known hazard of the cargo, and had failed to do so. Even if the shipowner was negligent in accepting or stowing the cargo, Nacirema's obligations included inspecting for and mitigating such risks. The decision rested on the nondelegable duty of the shipowner to the workers combined with Nacirema's independent contractual duties to the shipowner.
