Document: 375 U.S. 34 84 S.Ct. 1 11 L.Ed.2d 4 TIPTONv.SOCONY MOBIL OIL COMPANY, Inc. No. 200. Oct. 21, 1963. Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, See 936, 328. Clyde W. Woody, for petitioner. George B. Matthews, respondent. PER CURIAM. Petitioner brought this action in the District Court Southern of Texas against his employer under Jones Act. 46 U.S.C. § 688. The principal issue was whether, view nature work performed at time injury, petitioner a seaman, hence within coverage Act, or an offshore drilling employee. At trial before jury, admitted evidence, over objection petitioner's counsel, that had accepted compensation benefits Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation 33 901 et seq., as applied through Outer Continental Shelf Lands 43 1331 seq. latter although extending longshoremen's to new group, is explicitly inapplicable 'member crew any vessel.' 1333(c)(1). In response special interrogatory jury found not seaman member vessel meaning Judgment then entered upon verdict Appeals Fifth Circuit unanimously held it error have evidence other but, with one judge dissenting, harmless.1 We grant petition writ certiorari vacate judgment. 2 do agree on record case may be regarded harmless.2 There can no doubt pressed jury. Throughout respondent's counsel emphasized 'has remedy federal act, fact received form weekly payments act * *.' only argued relevance indicated what thought legal status. did not, however, frame cautionary instruction otherwise charge might considered insofar revealed others status be—whether employee—and dispositive ultimate whether he seaman. To contrary, judge's charge, containing elaborate discussion Act restatement disputed heightened likelihood prejudice. 3 A subsequent exchange between our opinion, negate cumulative impact instructions. while deliberating, sent following note judge: 'If we find Mr. Tipton barge 1, does recourse act?' immediately replied: 5 'This matter jury's consideration. You should consider questions submitted thereon.' 6 contends, correctly think, reply insufficient overcome jury.3 Although excluded from consideration availability alternative future action, preclude restrict presented concerning prior receipt payments. direction 'the submitted' illuminating further reference thereon' necessarily encompassed retained by 7 disagree suggestion prejudicial effect would restricted damages affect determination liability.4 That ignores presumably without qualification bearing basic essential liability. Indeed, inquiry seems indicate that, submitted, led place undue emphasis determining question On such cannot properly deemed harmless. 28 2111; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 61. Cf. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 750, 66 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557. 8 judgment vacated remanded proceedings accordance opinion. 9 It so ordered. 10 remanded. Justice HARLAN, dissenting. 12 I am opinion been denied case, which raises admissibility certain ruling admission erroneous, my Ferguson Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 521, 559, 77 457, 478, 511, dissenting Frankfurter same id., 524, 458, 511. 13 Since has granted, constrained say doubtful below probative belief employee irrelevant actually was. His sure amount demonstration fact; but me sufficiently relevant clearly inadmissible status, show purpose offered. event, solid reason disturbing circumstances prejudice was, therefore, harmless error. 14 Accordingly, believe 'certworthy,' affirm below. 315 F.2d 660, 662 (Brown, J., dissenting). majority explained its conclusion follows: '(I)n having decided adversely appellant, never reached damages, appellant harmless.' 662. Not until after discharge learn reply. Petitioner's when informed, took exception procedure However, present purposes need permissibility procedures involved. supra.

Category: 7