From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Waterman Steamship Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Feb 6, 1958
251 F.2d 655 (3d Cir. 1958)

Opinion

No. 12329.

Argued January 9, 1958.

Decided February 6, 1958.

Martin Vigderman, Philadelphia, Pa. (Abraham E. Freedman, Milton M. Borowsky, Freedman, Landy Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Harrison G. Kildare, Philadelphia, Pa. (Rawle Henderson, Thomas F. Mount, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.


This case is squarely ruled against the appellant by our prior decisions in Klingseisen v. Costanzo Transp. Co., 3 Cir., 1939, 101 F.2d 902, and Curtis v. A. Garcia y Cia., 3 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 30. We are, however, urged by the appellant to overrule those cases and now hold that the admiralty doctrine of comparative negligence is to be applied in a suit under the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act, 12 P.S. § 1601 et seq., for the death of a longshoreman on board a vessel in the port of Philadelphia instead of the Pennsylvania contributory negligence rule. We are satisfied, however, that the cases cited were correctly decided and we will accordingly follow and apply the rule laid down in them.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Hill v. Waterman Steamship Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Feb 6, 1958
251 F.2d 655 (3d Cir. 1958)
Case details for

Hill v. Waterman Steamship Corporation

Case Details

Full title:Irene HILL, Administratrix of the Estate of Benjamin Hill, Deceased…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Feb 6, 1958

Citations

251 F.2d 655 (3d Cir. 1958)

Citing Cases

Scott v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Eastern contends that since the fatal mishap occurred in the territorial waters of Massachusetts, that…

Holley v. the Manfred Stansfield

Thus it follows that, as contributory negligence is an absolute bar to a right of recovery in a death action…