# Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 6, 1959 · 358 U.S. 354

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421744

## Case

- **Full name:** ROMERO v. INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL OPERATING CO. Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 6, 1959
- **Citations:** 358 U.S. 354; 79 S. Ct. 468; 3 L. Ed. 2d 368; 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1747
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Black
- **Judges:** Frankfurter, Brennan, Douglas, Larsen, Black, Trasatlántica
- **Cited by:** 968 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled implicitly by Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (1972) — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421744

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the Admiralty Clause “empowered the federal courts in their exercise of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction which had been conferred on them, to draw on the substantive law ‘inherent in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,’ [ ] to continue the developme…
- holding that the district court had pendent jurisdiction to consider maintenance and cure claims brought “by a complaint at law rather than by a libel in admiralty” because the complaint also alleged a Jones Act violation, which was within the district court's jurisdiction und…
- holding that the district court had pendant jurisdiction to consider maintenance and cure claims brought "by a complaint at law rather than by a libel in admiralty" because the complaint also alleged a Jones Act violation, which was within the district court's jurisdiction und…
- holding, inter alia, that federal courts do not have federal question jurisdiction over general maritime claims because such claims do not "arise under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331
- holding that, although maritime claims are within federal courts’ original jurisdiction, they are not removable on that basis

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Black,
dissenting.
Although this case has aroused much discussion about the scope of jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 ,1 cannot feel that the issue is either complex or earth-shaking. The real core of the jurisdictional controversy is whether a few more seamen can have their suits for damages passed on by federal juries instead of judges. For the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Brennan here and by Judge Magruder in Doucette v. Vincent, 194 F. 2d 834, 839 , I believe that federal jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 lies and a federal jury trial is proper. In particular I feel that technical or esoteric readings should not be given to congressional language which is perfectly understandable in ordinary English.
Much the same reason leads me also to dissent from Part II of the Court's opinion. By its terms the Jones Act applies to “any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment.” 41 Stat. 1007 , 46 U. S. C. § 688 . (Italics added.) This Court in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U. S. 571 , held that the words “any seaman” did not include foreign seamen sailing foreign ships and injured in foreign waters. I dissented from that holding. It was based, I thought, on the Court’s concepts of what would be good or bad for the country *389 internationally rather than on an actual interpretation of the language of the Jones Act. Thus, it seemed to me that the Lauritzen holding rested on notions of what Congress should have said, not on what it did say. Such notions, weak enough in Lauritzen , seem much weaker still in this case where the tort involved occurred in our own waters. I cannot but feel that, at least as to torts occurring within the United States, Congress knew what it was doing when it said “any seaman” and I must dissent from today’s further and, I believe, unjustifiable reduction in the scope of the Jones Act. Moreover since the tort occurred in the navigable waters of the United States, I think the complaint against Compania Trasatlántica stated a good cause of action under general maritime law whether jurisdiction of the cause is based, as I believe, on 28 U. S. C. § 1331 , or, as the Court assumes, on some theory of “pendent jurisdiction.”
Mr. Justice Douglas joins in the first paragraph of this opinion. He believes that Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U. S. 571 , is inapposite to the present case, because of the numerous incidents connecting this transaction with the United States. He therefore agrees with Mr. Justice Black that the District Court should take jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim against Compania Trasatlántica.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421744. Public record. Not legal advice.