Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy And Pomeroy Packet Company v. Bay

• 1905 • 200 U.S. 179 • Fuller Court
In the 1905 case of Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy and Pomeroy Packet Company v. Bay, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Bay), a deckhand who was injured while working on one of defendant's steamboats. The court held that under maritime law, an employer is liable for injuries sustained by its employees due to negligence or unseaworthiness of their vessels. In this case, it was found that the injury occurred because a wire cable used to secure freight had been improperly...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1905
Docket: 174
200 U.S. 179
26 S. Ct. 208
50 L. Ed. 428
1906 U.S. LEXIS 1466
Argued: Dec 15, 1905

Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy And Pomeroy Packet Company v. Bay

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1905 case of Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy and Pomeroy Packet Company v. Bay, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Bay), a deckhand who was injured while working on one of defendant's steamboats. The court held that under maritime law, an employer is liable for injuries sustained by its employees due to negligence or unseaworthiness of their vessels. In this case, it was found that the injury occurred because a wire cable used to secure freight had been improperly coiled causing it to snap back when released and strike Bay in his eye leading to permanent blindness. The company argued they were not responsible as they did not have knowledge about improper coiling but court rejected this argument stating employers are expected to ensure safety measures at workplace irrespective of their personal knowledge about specific hazards.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy and Pomeroy Packet Company v. Bay (1905), Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a steamboat company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who was not on duty at the time of his injury. He argued that there should be no liability unless it can be shown that the employer failed to provide a safe place to work or was otherwise negligent in its duties towards employees. In this case, he believed there was no evidence of negligence on part of the steamboat company as they had provided proper accommodation and safety measures were in place. The accident occurred due to unforeseen circumstances which were beyond control of anyone involved including both parties i.e., employer and employee alike.

Opinion written by Justice OWHolmes
Decided: Jan 02, 1906
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms