Keith W. Forster, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Oro Navigation Company, Defendant-appellant, 228 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1955)
Annotate this CaseDecided December 7, 1955
Kirlin Campbell & Keating, New York City (Joseph M. Cunningham, Vernon S. Jones and Walter X. Connor, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Dunn & Zuckerman, New York City (Morton Zuckerman and Mortimer E. Greif, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FRANK, MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We agree with what Judge Bondy said in his opinion, reported in 128 F. Supp. 113. We add the following as to one of appellant's contentions which Judge Bondy did not consider.
46 U.S.C.A. § 596 imposes the duty of payment on "the master or owner". We think that, if the master fails to pay without sufficient cause, his neglect becomes also that of the owner, so that either is liable.1 The statute, designed to protect seamen, must be liberally interpreted for their benefit.2 Accordingly, Compagnie General Transatlantique v. Elting, 298 U.S. 217, 56 S. Ct. 770, 80 L. Ed. 1151, interpreting a statute, 8 U.S.C. § 167(a), with quite a different purpose, is inapposite.
Affirmed.
Cf. Shilman v. United States, 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 649, 650
Wilder v. Inter-Island Navigation Co., 211 U.S. 239, 29 S. Ct. 58, 53 L. Ed. 164; Shilman v. United States, 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 649, 650
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
