Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone The Arizona v. Anelich — Opinion of the Court

But the Jones Act does not, by its own terms, or by those adopted by reference from the Employers' Liability Act, prescribe that assumption of risk shall be a defense to the liability imposed for injuries to seamen on navigable waters, or, apart from the specific references to the fellow servant and contributory negligence rules, purport to enlarge or modify the defenses available in maritime law to suits brought to recover for such injuries.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone The Arizona v. Anelich — Opinion of the Court

While the maritime law before the enactment of the Jones Act permitted no recovery for injuries resulting in the death of a seaman, or generally for injuries resulting from the negligence of a fellow servant or the master, [1] a seaman who fell sick or was injured in the course of his employment was entitled to 'maintenance and cure,' 'at least so long as the voyage was continued,' see Pacific Steamship Co.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone The Arizona v. Anelich — Opinion of the Court

We do not discuss other questions of lesser moment including those growing out of the alleged negligent failure of petitioners to provide decedent with prompt and appropriate medical attention as a contributing cause of his death, but direct our attention to the question brought here for review, whether assumption of risk is a defense to suits under the Jones Act.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature