Filipek v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
258 F.2d 734 · 1958
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1990 · most notably West v. United States (1959), Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc. (1969)
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Wilkerson v. McCarthy · Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. · Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. · United States v. Ohio Power Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In presenting his alternative ground of recovery, the petitioner has a dual theory. He first says that the duty to furnish a safe place to work is a nondelegable duty, the- violation of which does not depend on fault. If unsuccessful in this position, he insists that respondent’s failure to keep the water plug tight was negligence. “Other than the doctrine of seaworthiness, whose nonrelevancy to this ease we have set forth, our decisions establish no basis of liability apart from fault. Of course, one aspect of the shipowner’s duty to refrain from negligent conduct is embodied in his duty to exercise reasonable care to furnish a safe place to work. But we do not believe that such a duty was owed under the circumstances of this case. Petitioner overlooks that here the respondent had no control over the vessel, or power either to supervise or to control the repair work in which petitioner was engaged. We believe this to be decisive against both aspects of plaintiff’s dual theory. There was no hidden defect in the water system. It was one of the objects to be repaired and its plugs were to be replaced where necessary. Its testing was to be done by the contractor — not by the shipowner. It appears manifestly unfair to apply the requirement of a safe place to work to the shipowner when he has no control over the ship or the repairs, and the work of repair in effect creates the danger which makes the place unsafe. The respondent, having hired Atlantic to perform the overhaul and r”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.