DARLINGTON
v.
NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC.
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The cases make it clear that the safety of ships at sea might be seriously endangered were the rule in accordance with the judge’s charge and not as stated in the requested charge.1 We need not consider whether, in extraordinary circumstances, the well-settled rule might perhaps be inapplicable if orders given were outrageously absurd, for here there were no such circumstances or orders.
Reversed and remanded.2
Masjulis v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 2 Cir., 31 F.2284; Reskin v. Minnesota-Atlantic Transit Co., 2 Cir., 107 F. 2d 743, 745; Storgard v. France & Canada S. S. Corp., 2 Cir., 263 F. 545.
We disagree with B. A. Carroll Stevedore Co. v. Makinda, 1 Cir., 20 F. 2d 19, so far as it suggests a contrary rule.
It is immaterial that plaintiff was not disciplined when, after the injury, he refused to continue to obey the order; for he was not obliged’ to eonjec-ture what would be the response of his superiors to disobedience, especially before the occurrence of injuries resulting from bis compliance with the order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Juan v. Fernandez, 426 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
-
Laurice v. COX, 247 F.2d 629 (5th Cir. 1957)
-
Rivera v. Rederi A/B Nordstjernan, 456 F.2d 970 (1st Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reskin v. Minnesota-Atlantic Transit Co., 107 F.2d 743 (2d Cir. 1939)
- B. A. Carroll Stevedore Co., Inc. v. Makinda, 20 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1927)