Maia v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd. — 141 Misc. 140

Majority

p. 140

Antonio Maia, Respondent, v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

July 24, 1931.

Wollman & Wollman [Henry Wollman and Aaron B. Coleman of counsel], for the appellant.

Isador Leifer, for the respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously reversed upon the law, with costs and taxable disbursements, and complaint dismissed with appropriate costs in the court below.

Plaintiff has recovered a judgment based upon a tort which occurred on a British vessel in the territorial waters of Brazil. The recovery was predicated upon the negligence of a fellow-servant of the plaintiff. The “ Jones Act ” (U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 688) is inapplicable. There was neither allegation nor proof, and it may not be presumed, that a similar statute existed either in Great Britain or Brazil. The burden of estabhshing such laws was upon the plaintiff. (Christie v. Cerro de Pasco Copper Corp., 214 App. Div. 820 ; affd., 243 N. Y. 557 ; Cuba R. R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U. S. 473 ; Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. Chantry, 136 Fed. 316 .)

All concur; present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

Cases cited

Plant Manufacturing Corp. v. Renner 243 N. Y. 557 N.Y. 1926-07-09 p. 140
Cuba Railroad v. Crosby 222 U. S. 473 SCOTUS 1912-01-09 p. 140