Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 406, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143, 1954 AMC 1 (1953)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Charles Hawn (plaintiff) suffered severe injuries while working on a vessel belonging to Pope & Talbot, Inc. (defendant) when he fell through an uncovered hatch hole. At the time of Hawn’s injury, the vessel was berthed at a pier in the Delaware River in Pennsylvania. Hawn sued Pope & Talbot in federal district court, in law under diversity jurisdiction, for unseaworthiness and negligence. The district court found that the vessel was unseaworthy and that Pope & Talbot had been negligent but that Hawn had also been contributorily negligent. The jury determined that Hawn’s negligence had been 17.5 percent responsible for the accident and reduced his award by that percentage. The court of appeals affirmed the decision. Pope & Talbot appealed, alleging that Pennsylvania law, which barred any recovery for a tort victim who was contributorily negligent, should apply to the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
Dissent (Jackson, J)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.