ANDREW ANTHONY AHO, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the exclusive liability provision of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act does not permit a seaman on a public vessel to sue under the Public Vessels Act, similar to how it applies to private shipowners.
This case concerns a seaman on a public vessel suing under the Public Vessels Act. The question is whether the exclusive liability provision of the Fe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Vessels Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Presented again is the question whether Yaka,1 which rejected literal application of the exclusive liability section as to private shipowners, 33 U.S.C.A. § 905, permits the same result as to seamen on public vessels under a similar exclusive provision in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 757 (b), in a suit under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 781-790.
In Suhar v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 351 F. 2d 952, without saying so we necessarily rejected this contention which had been specifically urged. The result was the same in our earlier decision in-Jarvis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F. 2d 799, cert, denied, 1965, 382 U.S. 831, 86 S.Ct. 70, 15 L.Ed.2d 75. Since then two things of significance have occurred. The Supreme Court in Amell v. United States, 1966, 384 U.S. 158, 86 S.Ct. 1384, 16 L.Ed.2d 445, 447, expressly recognized the continuing vitality of its earlier decisions 2 on which we specifically relied. More recently and more important it has in effect given specific approval to Jarvis. See United States v. Demko, 1966, 385 U.S. 149, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258, 261, note 4.
Affirmed.
. Reed v. SS Yaka, 1963, 373 U.S. 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448, 1963 AMC 1373.
. Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051; Patterson v. United States, 359 U.S. 495, 79 S.Ct. 936, 3 L.Ed.2d 971.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tulia Feedlot, Inc. v. United States, 513 F.2d 800 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Noga v. United States, 411 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1969)
-
Fortuna Broom Co. v. Wirtz, 379 F.2d 327 (5th Cir. 1967)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reed v. THE Yaka, 373 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1963)
- Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1952)
- United States v. Demko, 385 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1966)
- Amell v. United States, 384 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1966)
- Patterson v. United States, 359 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1959)
- Megge v. United States, 382 U.S. 831 (U.S. 1965)
- Teitelbaum v. United States, 382 U.S. 831 (U.S. 1965)
- Mrs. Charles Jarvis v. United States, 342 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Syrotchen v. United States, 351 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1965)