Daniel Cleary, Libellant (Plaintiff) Appellee, v. United States Lines Company, Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant), v. T. Hogan & Sons, Inc., Respondent-Impleaded-Appellant (Third-Party Defendant-Appellant)., 411 F.2d 1009 (2nd Cir. 1969)

Federal Circuits, 2nd Cir. (June 02, 1969)

Docket number: 33126

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/cleary-libellant-hogan-sons-impleaded-36736450
Id. vLex: VLEX-36736450

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Esso Standard Oil S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. the S. S. Gasbras Sul, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., and A/S Sobral, as Owner Ofthe S. S. Gasbras Sul, Claimant-Defendant-Appellant., 387 F.2d 573 (2nd Cir. 1968)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Mamiye Bros., Et Al., Libellants-Appellants, v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., Et Al., Respondents-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Atlantic Stevedoring Co. Inc., Et Al., Impleaded-Respondents - Cross-Appellees. Gelmart Knitting Mills, Inc., Et Al., Libellants-Appellants, v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., Et Al., Respondents-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Atlantic Stevedoring Co. Inc., Et Al., Impleaded-Respondents - Cross-Appellees. Isaac Cohen & Sons Corp. Et Al., Libellants-Appellants, v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., Et Al., Respondents-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Atlantic Stevedoring Co., Inc., Et Al., Impleaded-Respondents - Cross-Appellees., 360 F.2d 774 (2nd Cir. 1966) Et Al., Libellants-Appellants, v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., Et Al., Respondents-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Atlantic Stevedoring Co. Inc., Et Al., Impleaded-Respondents - Cross-Appellees. Gelmart Knitting Mills, Inc., Et Al., Libellants-Appellants, v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., Et Al., Respondents-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Atlantic Stevedoring Co. Inc., Et Al., Impleaded-Respondents - Cross-Appellees. Isaac Cohen & Sons Corp. Et Al., Libellants-Appellants, v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., Et Al., Respondents-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Atlantic Stevedoring Co., Inc., Et Al., Impleaded-Respondents - Cross-Appellees.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Martin Radovich, Libelant-Appellant, v. Cunard Steamship Co., Ltd., Respondent-Impleading Petitioner-Appellee, v. John T. Clark & Son and Gourock Ropework Co., Ltd., Respondents-Impleaded., 364 F.2d 149 (2nd Cir. 1966)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Carmelo Candiano, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, v. John W. Mcgrath Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee., 382 F.2d 961 (2nd Cir. 1967)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Mary Cronin, Conservatrix of the Estate of Kenneth Cronin, Plaintiff, v. the Hertz Corporation, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. Thomas M. Hull, Third Party Defendant and Fourth Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Fourth Party Defendant-Appellee., 818 F.2d 1064 (2nd Cir. 1987)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - M. P. Howlett, Inc., Appellee, v. Tug Michael Moran, Tug Michael Moran, Inc. and Moran Towing & Transportation Co., Inc., Appellants., 425 F.2d 619 (2nd Cir. 1970)

U.S. Supreme Court - Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494 (1971)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Raye Dinnerstein, Executrix of the Estate of Howard Dinnerstein, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant., 486 F.2d 34 (2nd Cir. 1973)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Erie Lackawanna Railway Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert D. Timpany (Formerly John E. Farrell) Solely as Trustee of the Property of the Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant., 495 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1974)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Eugene J. Whelan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Penn Central Company, Now Known as Penn Central Transportation Co., Defendant-Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant, v. the United States of America, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Appellee and Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. the Federal Storage Warehouse, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant., 503 F.2d 886 (2nd Cir. 1974)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Iligan Integrated Steel Mills, Inc., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ss John Weyerhaeuser, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees-Appellants., 507 F.2d 68 (2nd Cir. 1974)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Director General of the India Supply Mission for and on Behalf of the President of the Union of India, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.S. Maru (Ex Riverhead, Ex Theokeetor), Her Engines, Boilers, Etc. and Luarca Cia. Nav. S.A., Defendant-Appellee., 459 F.2d 1370 (2nd Cir. 1972)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Lorenz Schneider Co., Inc., Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent., 517 F.2d 445 (2nd Cir. 1975)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Frank Payne, Martha Payne, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee., 359 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir. 2004)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Daniel J. Dougherty, New York City (Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, and Craig D. Walley, New York City, on the brief), for United States Lines Co.

Frank A. Fritz, New York City (Bleakley, Platt, Schmidt, Hart & Fritz and Craig D. Walley, New York City, on the brief), for T. Hogan & Sons, Inc.

Chester A. Hahn, New York City (Sylvia Miller, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and WYATT, District Judge.1

PER CURIAM:

On October 7, 1963, appellee a longshoreman in the employ of appellant T. Hogan & Sons, Inc., was working as a hi-lo driver stowing cargo in the lower hold of the No. 6 hatch of the S.S. PIONEER MYTH, a vessel owned by appellant United States Lines Company. When the hatch was 'pretty full,' an uncrated but bound bundle of automobile chassis was lowered into the hold and stowed lengthwise so that the front or narrow ends of the chassis were in the square of the hatch. After these had been stowed, the appellee parked his hi-lo machine in the square and stood in the wing under the overhang. The trial court found that this was the only available safe position in the hatch, D.C., 287 F.Supp. 601.

The winchman then lowered three cases, estimated between 6 to 8 feet wide and 10 feet long, into the hatch to a point where they struck the chassis and knocked them over on top of the appellee, who in consequence suffered severe injuries. Thereafter he brought this action to recover damages based upon the alleged unseaworthiness and negligence of the SS. PIONEER MYTH. After a trial before the court, the appellee was awarded a $128,659.18 judgment on the theory of unseaworthiness against the shipowner who recovered a judgment of indemnity against the third party defendant stevedore. The defendant and third party defendant appeal from those judgments.

It is now clear that a ship is rendered unseaworthy by a longshoreman's negligent use of seaworthy equipment. Candiano v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 382 F.2d 961 (2 Cir. 1967). The only issue in this appeal, therefore, is the lower court's determination that the winchman acted negligently in spotting the up-and-down boom. While that finding of negligence is reviewable as a matter of law, Mamiye Bros. v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., 360 F.2d 774, 776 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 835 , 87 S.Ct. 80, 17 L.Ed.2d 70 (1966), it will ordinarily stand unless the lower court manifests an incorrect conception of the applicable law. Radovich v. Cunard Steamship Co., 364 F.2d 149, 152 (2 Cir. 1966); Esso Standard Oil S.A. v. S.S. Gasbras Sul, 387 F.2d 573 (2 Cir. 1968). Here the court found that the winchman had a clear view of the hold, that the draft was not swaying as it descended, and that the cases could have been lowered into the hold without hitting any of the cargo previously stowed. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the court did not err in deciding that the winchman should have foreseen the collision and consequently did not exercise reasonable care in continuing to lower the cases with the boom spotted as it was.

Although the $90,000 award for pain and suffering is high, we cannot say that it was reversible error in the light of evidence from which the court reasonably could and did find that appellee had suffered extensive, severe and permanent injuries.

The judgments of the district court are affirmed.

1 Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation