ALBANESE v. N. V. NEDERL. AMERIK STOOMV. MAATS. et al.
No. 523.
Decided December 13, 1965.
Philip F. DiCostanzo and Robert Klonsky for petitioner in No. 523. Sidney A. Schwartz and Joseph Arthur Cohen for petitioner in No. 557.
Edmund F. Lamb for respondent N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats. in Nos. 523 and 557 and for petitioner in No. 654.
Arthur J. Mandell for the American Trial Lawyers Association Admiralty Section, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition in No. 523.
Together with No. 557, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. v. N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats.; and No. 654, N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats. v. Albanese et al., also on petitions for writs of certiorari to the same court.
Per Curiam.
The motion of the American Trial Lawyers Association for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. The petition for certiorari in No. 523, Albanese v. N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats., is also granted.
We believe that the judgment of the Court of Appeals setting aside the judgment for petitioner Albanese on the ground that the trial court incorrectly charged the jury on the issue of negligence is erroneous. Gutierrez v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 373 U. S. 206.
In its opinion the Court of Appeals also stated that the District Court incorrectly instructed the jury as to the applicability of the Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring on the question of the shipowner’s liability. But we do not read that court’s opinion as making this an independent ground for ordering a new trial. So we not only reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the case of Albanese but reinstate the District Court’s judgment in his favor.
The petitions in No. 557, International Terminal Operating Co. v. N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats.; and No. 654, N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats. v. Albanese, are denied.
It is so ordered.
29 CFR §9.1 et seg. (1963), now 29 CFR § 1504.1 (1965), promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the authority of Public Law 85-742, 72 Stat. 835, 33 U. S. C. §941 (1964 ed.).
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.