Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Supreme Court of the United States, 1957

Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.

Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.
Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 25, 1957 · Harlan, Burton, Whittaker
355 U.S. 20; 78 S. Ct. 1; 2 L. Ed. 2d 3; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1571 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Philip F. Di Costanzo for petitioner., Eugene Underwood and William M. Kimball for respondent.

Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.

Cases that cite this one

43 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. * We hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to charge respondent’s request *21 No. 12. The petitioner’s alleged choice of a more dangerous route did not, under the proofs, operate to bar recovery as a matter of law. The jury was properly instructed that the petitioner’s negligence, if any, was to be considered in mitigation of damages under the rule applicable in actions for personal injuries arising from maritime torts. Poye & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 408-409; cf. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U. S. 424.

For reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.

[For memorandum of Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Whittaker, see ante, p. 19.]
*

[Amended, post, p. 910, to provide for remand of the case to the Court of Appeals.]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.