402 F.2d 778 - Johnson v. United States — 402 F.2d 778

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2017

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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.

¶1See 89 S.Ct. 1195.

¶2Clifton S. Carl, Garrett & Carl, New Orleans, La., for appellants.

¶3Kathleen Ruddell, Asst, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Morton Hollander, Daniel Joseph, Michael C. Farrar, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Louis C. LaCour, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., for appellees.

¶4Before GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BOOTLE, District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6The appellants, Roosevelt Johnson, [No. 25485], and Anthony Buckner, [No. 25486], brought suit against the appellees under the General Maritime Law, the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. § 781 et seq., and the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 741 et seq. seeking re*779covery for injuries allegedly sustained in the course of their employment as federal employees aboard the SS CRIS-TOBAL, a vessel owned and operated by the Panama Canal Company, a wholly-owned agency and instrumentality of the United States. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Government and dismissed the complaints on the ground that the exclusive remedy of the appellants against the United States was under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 751 et seq.1

¶7Our decision in this case is controlled by decisions of the Supreme Court and prior decisions of this court which we consider to be clearly dispositive of the issue presented. These decisions compel the conclusion that a seaman who was injured in the course of his employment as a federal employee of the Panama Canal Company, a federal instrumentality, is limited to the benefits provided under the terms of the Federal Employees Compensation Act and, therefore, such seaman may not maintain a suit for damages against the Government. Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051 (Public Vessels Act); Patterson v. United States, 359 U.S. 495, 79 S.Ct. 936, 3 L.Ed.2d 971, (Suits in Admiralty Act); Jarvis v. United States, 342 F.2d 799 (C.A. 5), affirming Petition of United States, 212 F.Supp. 214 (E.D.La.), cert. den. 382 U.S. 831, 86 S.Ct. 70, 15 L.Ed. 2d 75 (Suits in Admiralty Act); Suhar v. United States, 351 F.2d 952 (C.A. 5) (general maritime law); Aho v. United States, 374 F.2d 885 (C.A. 5), cert. den. 389 U.S. 930, 88 S.Ct. 292, 19 L.Ed.2d 282 (libel in admiralty). The Johansen and Patterson decisions have been reaffirmed recently. Amell v. United States, 384 U.S. 158 at 160-161, 86 S.Ct. 1384, 16 L.Ed.2d 445; United States v. Demko, 385 U.S. 149, at 151-152, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258.

¶8The judgment is affirmed.