International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 50 (1926)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Haverty (plaintiff) was a longshoreman employed by International Stevedoring Company (IS) (defendant). Haverty was injured while stowing freight in the hold of a docked vessel. The hatch tender, who was also employed by IS, negligently failed to warn that a load was about to be lowered, and Haverty was seriously hurt when the load came down. Haverty brought a personal-injury action in Washington state court to recover damages from IS. IS sought a ruling that Haverty and the hatch tender were fellow servants, which would preclude Haverty from recovering from IS under the common-law fellow-servant rule. Congress’s Act of June 5, 1920, c. 250, § 20 (the Jones Act) provided that seamen who suffered personal injuries in the course of employment could maintain an action for damages and that the statutes modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railroad employees applied to actions brought by seamen. The court ruled that if the hatch tender’s failure to warn proximately caused Haverty’s injury, a verdict had to be returned for Haverty. A verdict was returned in favor of Haverty, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted IS’s petition for a writ of certiorari. IS argued that the case was governed by the admiralty law and that the admiralty law had adopted the common-law fellow-servant rule.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.