Case Citator › Plamals v. S. S. Pinar Del Rio

Plamals v. S. S. Pinar Del Rio

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
277 U.S. 151
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
9 of 9
Citing cases (total)
9
Treatment dates
1944
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Plamals v. S. S. Pinar Del Rio was overruled in part by Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co. The Supreme Court disapproved Plamals's suggestion that choosing a defective rope when sound rope was available could not make the ship unseaworthy. Plamals's separate rule that a Jones Act negligence claim creates no in rem maritime lien continues to be cited.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. All nine flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

9 later cases cite Plamals v. S. S. Pinar Del Rio; 9 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Plamals v. S. S. Pinar Del Rio?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court disapproved Plamals's statement that a defective rope did not make a ship unseaworthy merely because sound rope was available.

    Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The statement from The Pinar Del Rio, supra, relied upon by the two courts below, could be taken to support their decision, only on the assumption either that the presence of sound rope on the “Wichita Falls” afforded an excuse for the failure to provide a safe staging, or that antecedent negligence of the mate in directing the use of the defective rope relieved the owner from liability for furnishing the appliance thereby rendered unseaworthy. But as we have seen, neither assumption is tenable in the light of our decisions before and since The Pinar Del Rio, supra. So far as this statement supports these assumptions, it is disapproved.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Plamals v. S. S. Pinar Del Rio and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace