Monroe Taylor, Appellant, v. the Ss Helen Lykes, Her Engines, Tackle, Funiture, Etc., Et Al., Appellees., 402 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1968)
Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (October 31, 1968)
Docket number: 25101
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/monroe-lykes-engines-tackle-funiture-36732290
Id. vLex: VLEX-36732290
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Document language
Search in this document
Document options
U.S. Supreme Court - Waldron v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 386 U.S. 724 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court - Morales v. Galveston, 370 U.S. 165 (1962)
RSSU.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Hazel Jean Grigsby, Widow of John D. Grigsby, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of Her Minor Children, Javan K. Grigsby and Jennifer Ann Grigsby, Appellee, v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc., Maryland Casualty Company, Gulf Salt Carriers, Inc., F. E. Aiple D/B/a Aiple Towing Company, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Welders Supply Company of Lake Charles, Louisiana, Appellants. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Intervenor-Appellee., 412 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1969) Widow of John D. Grigsby, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of Her Minor Children, Javan K. Grigsby and Jennifer Ann Grigsby, Appellee, v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc., Maryland Casualty Company, Gulf Salt Carriers, Inc., F. E. Aiple D/B/a Aiple Towing Company, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Welders Supply Company of Lake Charles, Louisiana, Appellants. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Intervenor-Appellee.
C. S. Carl, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Benjamin W. Yancey, Maurie D. Yager, New Orleans, La., for appellees. Terriberry, Rault, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell, New Orleans, La., of counsel.Before COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.PER CURIAM:This appeal involves an action in Admiralty brought by a longshoreman to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while he was at work aboard a merchant vessel, stowing bagged cargo. The district judge rejucted the claims of the appellant in detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered dismissal of the suit. We affirm.The district court erred, asserts appellant, in not finding the ship unseaworthy because, first, 'the plan of operation for stowing cargo was unsafe';1 and second, 'men were substituted for equipment.'2 Construing these contentions with what liberality we may, they just are not applicable here.There can, of course, be no dispute that, given the appropriate facts, an improper method of handling cargo would render a vessel unseaworthy. But, where as here, the injury occurred when experienced plaintiff failed to use suitable equipment then available, it cannot be held that there was a 'method' or 'plan' of loading which was improper. Appellant's reliance on Waldron, supra, is misplaced. There, the assignment of insufficient manual assistance constituted the unseaworthy condition. But here, the record is utterly barren of even a suggestion that too few longshoremen were assigned to stow the bags. The case begins and remains a simple one. Appellant and his co-worker took it upon themselves not to make use of available pallet boards as a platform from which to stow the cargo, and not to utilize the manual assistance of other longshoremen then available.Upon consideration of the record, briefs and argument, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is affirmed on the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth in the court's opinion. 268 F.Supp. 932. 1 Citing Morales v. City of Galveston, 370 U.S. 165, 82 S.Ct. 1226, 8 L.Ed.2d 412 (1962) 2 Citing, Waldron v. Moore-McCormack, 386 U.S. 724, 87 S.Ct. 1410, 18 L.Ed.2d 482 (1967)Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
- Constitutions
- Forms and Contracts
- Legal Books and Journals
- Case Law
- News and Business
- Regulations
- U.S. Code
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access
