# Darlington v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · October 30, 1946 · 157 F.2d 817

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1483064

## Case

- **Full name:** DARLINGTON v. NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** October 30, 1946
- **Citations:** 157 F.2d 817; 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3236
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Frank
- **Judges:** Hani, Swan, Frank
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1483064

## Opinion text

FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The cases make it clear that the safety of ships at sea might be seriously endangered were the rule in accordance with the judge’s charge and not as stated in
*820
the requested charge.
1
We need not consider whether, in extraordinary circumstances, the well-settled rule might perhaps be inapplicable if orders given were outrageously absurd, for here there were no such circumstances or orders.
Reversed and remanded.
2
1
Masjulis v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 2 Cir., 31 F.2284; Reskin v. Minnesota-Atlantic Transit Co., 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 743, 745 ; Storgard v. France & Canada S. S. Corp., 2 Cir., 263 F. 545 .
We disagree with B. A. Carroll Stevedore Co. v. Makinda, 1 Cir., 20 F.2d 19 , so far as it suggests a contrary rule.
2
It is immaterial that plaintiff was not disciplined when, after the injury, he refused to continue to obey the order; for he was not obliged’ to eonjec-ture what would be the response of his superiors to disobedience, especially before the occurrence of injuries resulting from bis compliance with the order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1483064. Public record. Not legal advice.