Court Opinion

ID: 9674077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:22:47.262789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.490603
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
On rehearing, appellant says our decision in this case is contrary to the holdings in The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110, 56 S.Ct. 707, 80 L.Ed. 1075; Ran v. Atlantic Ref. Co., D.C., 87 F.Supp. 853; Cox v. Roth, 348 U.S. 207, 75 S.Ct. 242, 99 L.Ed. 260; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239. We have read each of the cited cases. Each of them was concerned with a cause of action involving negligence, hence the Jones Act was applicable. None of them was concerned, as is this appeal, with an action based on unseaworthiness not involving negligence, to which type of action we hold the Jones Act is not applicable.
Appellant says in effect that The Arizona v. Anelich, supra, is authority for holding that the general maritime law is drawn into and made a part of the Jones Act, consequently the provisions of the Jones Act, including the three-year limitations period, are applicable to all causes arising under the general maritime law. We do not so interpret the Arizona case. The opinion in the Arizona case holds that the Jones Act has become a part of the general maritime law. It does not follow that all cases arising under general maritime law are therefore to be governed by the provisions of the Jones Act, for of course a part cannot be said to include and cover the whole.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.