Summary

Robert H. Jackson De Zon v. American President Lines…

The issue in this case is: shall a jury or a court decide whether petitioner lost his eye through the respondent's negligence? I agree with the Court that the shipowner was liable for the negligence of its doctor, and I agree further that the Jones Act is not a workmen's compensation act and does not impose liability without fault; but I do not agree that a court may substitute its judgment on the facts for the decision of a jury when, as here, there is room for reasonable difference of opinion on the critical issue of the case.
Source: Wikisource

Robert H. Jackson De Zon v. American President Lines…

I think there was sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find negligence in the doctor's failure to leave the petitioner at Honolulu for hospital treatment.
The evidence showed that this seaman sustained an injury so serious that it resulted in the eventual removal of his eye. When a seaman is injured, the shipowner has an imperative obligation to come to his aid; [7] and the shipowner's responsibility is so heavy that he may be found negligent for failure to take his ship to the nearest port in order to provide adequate treatment.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature