James C. Tullis v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York, 397 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
James C. Tullis v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York, 397 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the failure to provide a reasonably safe means of debarking, -with consequent injury to the-passenger, is a tort within admiralty jurisdiction.”
47 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Newell v. Carnival Cruise Lines (fladistctapp, 2015-11-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Newell v. Carnival Cruise Lines (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the failure to provide a reasonably safe means of debarking, -with consequent injury to the-passenger, is a tort within admiralty jurisdiction.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carnival Corp. v. Garcia
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Co. of N.Y., 397 F.2d 22, 23-24 (5th Cir. 1968)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kadylak v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Co. of N.Y.C., 397 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lipkin v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
S.D. Fla. · 2015 · confidence medium
Co. of N.Y., 397 F.2d 22, 23-24 (5th Cir.1968). 1 The Court therefore finds that the tort alleged in the complaint also satisfies the connection test, and this cause of action is within its admiralty jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bird v. Celebrity Cruise Line, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 2005 · confidence medium
In adjudicating passenger personal injury claims, the court held that “[t]he liability basis is negligence with the only apparent exception being the'unconditional responsibility of the carrier for the misconduct of the crew toward the passengers.” Id. at 23.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jane Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. (2×)
11th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Co. of New York, 397 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir.1968). 21 In *910 Tullis , this Court concluded that negligence was the applicable liability standard for the slip and fall in that case and cited Kermarec .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Tullis v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, 397 F.2d 22, 23-24 (11th Cir.1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sherri D. White v. United States
4th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Hawaiian Legislator, 425 F.2d 1303, 1306 (9th Cir.1970) (admiralty tort jurisdiction traditionally "bounded by locality” now expanded by Extension Act); Florida Fuels, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 6 F.3d 330, 332 (5th Cir.1993) (traditional maritime law encompasses the gangway), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1400 , 128 L.Ed.2d 73 (1994); Romero Reyes v. Marine Enters., 494 F.2d 866, 869-70 (1st Cir.1974) (shipowner's duty of care extends to gangway); Tullis v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 397 F.2d 22, 24 (5th Cir.1968) (citing The Admiral Peoples for the proposition that a "gangplank is con…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles W. And Margaret Laverne Beard v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines
6th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Muratore v. M/Scotia Prince, 845 F.2d 347, 353 (1st Cir.1988); Gibboney v. Wright, 517 F.2d 1054, 1059 (5th Cir.1975); Tullis v. Fidelity and Casualty Co., 397 F.2d 22, 23-24 (5th Cir.1968); Urian v. Milstead, 473 F.2d 948, 951 (8th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rutledge v. a & P Boat Rentals, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
W.D. La. · 1986 · confidence medium
Rainey v. Paquet Cruises, Inc., 709 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir.1983); Dove v. Belcher Oil Co., supra; Roberts v. Williams-McWilliams Co., supra; Tittle v. Aldacosta, 544 F.2d 752 , 755 (5th Cir.1977); Gibboney v. Wright, 517 F.2d 1054 , 1059 (5th Cir.1975); Tullís v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, 397 F.2d 22, 23-24 (5th Cir. 1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Crews Rainey v. Paquet Cruises, Inc., Nouvelle Compagnie De Paquetvots, Cie. (2×)
2d Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Gibboney v. Wright, 517 F.2d 1054, 1059 (5th Cir.1975); Tullis v. Fidelity and Casualty Co., 397 F.2d 22, 23-24 (5th Cir.1968). 1 We have not yet confronted the issue.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duluth Superior Excursions, Inc., and Flamingo Excursions, Inc. v. Joseph Makela
8th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
The Court held, however, that admiralty jurisdiction is established when it is alleged that the shipowner commits a tort while or before the ship is being unloaded, and the impact of which is felt ashore at a time and place not remote from the wrongful act. [Id. at 210, 83 S.Ct. at 1188 (footnote omitted).] These conditions for admiralty jurisdiction are fully satisfied in the present case. 5 Cf. Tullis v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, 397 F.2d 22, 23-24 (5th Cir. 1968) (admiralty jurisdiction established by a crew boat passenger’s allegation that defendant boat owner failed to prov…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Godfrey Arthur v. Flota Mercante Gran Centro Americana S.A., Defendant-Third Party, National Cargo Bureau, Inc., Third Party
3rd Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
While it is well established that a shipowner owes a duty to provide invitees boarding or leaving the vessel with a reasonably safe means of access, Tullís v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 397 F.2d 22, 24 (5th Cir., 1968), defendant contends that it satisfied this duty.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Richard E. Garrett v. United States Lines, Inc. And United States of America, United States Lines, Inc., Cross-Complainant-Appellant v. United States of America, Cross-Defendant-Appellee
9th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Tullis v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 397 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1968); The Oregon, 133 F. 609, 618 (9th Cir. 1904). 13 Next we consider the district court's dismissal of U.S. Lines' indemnity claim against the United States.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Garrett v. United States Lines, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Tullis v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 397 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1968); The Oregon, 133 F. 609, 618 (9th Cir. 1904).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James C. TULLIS, Appellant,
v.
FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK Et Al., Appellees
25455.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 1, 1968.
397 F.2d 22
1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6267
Philip E. Henderson, of O’Neal, Waitz & Henderson, Houma, La., for appellant., Maurice J. Wilson, of Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.
Tuttle, Dyer, Mehrtens.
Cited by 34 opinions  |  Published
MEHRTENS, District Judge:

This appeal is from an order granting defendants motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and judgment thereon.

The sole question is the sufficiency of the complaint.

Plaintiff alleged in his complaint and asserted in the pre-trial stipulation that: On February 23, 1964 he was a fishing tool supervisor employed by Houston Oilfield Material Company and as such made a trip to and from the Wheless Drilling rig No. 8 located in navigable waters on a crew boat “The Danny Boy” which at the time was “working for and as an agent of defendant Wheless Drilling Company.” Having performed his job he was brought back by the crew boat to the dock Wheless had directed plaintiff to use. While debarking the accident occurred. The “dock” extended seaward from a single row of pilings, behind which was a washed out area. To debark from the crew boat plaintiff had to step from its stern, which was backed up to the pilings, onto a thin single plank lying with one end on a piling and the other end on shore spanning the washed out area between the pilings and the shore. There were no handrails or grabrails. As a proximate result “of the unsafe condition of the means of egress from the crew boat” plaintiff, while debarking, fell into the washed out area between the piling and the bank and was injured.

The trial court agreed with defendants’ argument that the piling and plank constituted an “extension of land” and that the resultant injury was therefore not cognizable in admiralty. Since the diversity action was prescribed by the Louisiana Statute, the complaint was dismissed.

Although plaintiff at the time of the accident may or may not have been a crew member under the rule in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 65 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946), he at least had the status of a passenger receiving maritime transportation from Wheless Drilling Company. Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc. v. Hicks, 285 U.S. 502, 52 S.Ct. 450, 76 L.Ed. 903 (1932); Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. C/B Mr. Kim, 345 F.2d 45 (C.A. 5, 1965). The principles involving liability to passengers differ little from those in use ashore. The liability basis is negligence with the only apparent exception being the unconditional responsibility of the carrier for the misconduct of the crew toward the passengers. The “negligence”, of course, may consist of the failure to provide or maintain a reasonably safe means for a passenger to debark. The failure to provide a reasonably safe means of debarking, with[*24] consequent injury to the passenger, is a tort within admiralty jurisdiction. See Kermaree v. Compagnie Generale Trans-Atlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959); Marshall v. Westfal-Larsen & Co., 259 F.2d 575 (C. A. 9, 1958); Lampka v. Wilson Line of Washington, Inc., 117 U.S.App.D.C. 55, 325 F.2d 628 (1963). In this case the alleged breach of duty to provide a reasonably safe means of debarking is negligence by the defendant which occurred immediately prior to and during debarking.

The plaintiff seeks to establish a breach of duty as a maritime tort for negligence occurring upon the vessel while in navigable waters. Though injury may occur ashore at a time and place not remote from the wrongful act, where the tortious act occurs aboard ship, by the ship or its personnel, there is admiralty jurisdiction. Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 373 U.S. 206, 210, 83 S.Ct. 1185, 10 L.Ed.2d 297 (1963). Here the alleged negligence occurred immediately prior to and during debarkation. The substance and consummation of the occurrence took place before plaintiff arrived upon a solid pier or land and is therefore within admiralty jurisdiction. This Court has not been cited nor have we found any case holding that a row of pilings connected to shore by a single plank over nine or ten feet of water, is in any way analogous to a fixed pier or wharf, which are considered extensions of land, thereby limiting recovery for injuries to local law. It is indisputable that the plank was used to provide ingress and egress from the crew boat over water and in that sense could be considered a part of the vessel’s equipment in lieu of the usual or customary gangplank. In such case The Admiral Peoples, 295 U.S. 649, 55 S.Ct. 885, 79 L.Ed. 1633 (1935), holding that a gangplank is considered a part of the ship so that injuries which occur thereon are within admiralty jurisdiction, would apply. In any event it is clearly alleged that defendant breached its duty to provide and maintain a reasonably safe means of debarking and that as a proximate result plaintiff was injured. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the complaint for lack of admiralty jurisdiction.

Plaintiff also alleges a third' party beneficiary status under any contract Wheless might have had with the owners of the crew boat. Defendant, in its brief asserts the crew boat was under time charter. The trial court made no ruling as to this and no contract is in the record before us.

We, of course, are not here passing on the ultimate rights of these parties or the merits of their claims which can and will be determined when the cause is tried on the merits. We merely hold that the complaint states a claim within admiralty jurisdiction and should not have been dismissed for lack of such jurisdiction.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.