REABE
v.
UNITED STATES STEEL CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant was not negligent and affirmed the judgment for the defendant.
Plaintiff, a chambermaid, was injured while returning to her vessel by using a single gunwale instead of the designated double gunwale, and colliding …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Maintenance And Cure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the judgment for the defendant in Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, case. The original action combined a claim for maintenance and cure and a claim for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the defendant’s negligence. The case was tried to the court. Plaintiff recovered for maintenance and cure and the defendant had a judgment in the claim for negligence. The trial court made full findings of fact. We agree with the findings.
The plaintiff was a chambermaid on a vessel on the Monongahela River. She went ashore, with permission, when the vessel was in a lock near Monessen, Pennsylvania. Returning from her errand, she was in a hurry and ran along the single gunwale of the barge although she had been instructed to use the double gunwale between the first two barges in going to-and from the lock. She was running on her way back to the vessel and. continued to do so though warned to stop by a deck hand named Gross. She ran into Gross, who was standing at the end of the first barge ready to handle a 2-inch tow line which was to be loosened from the lock. Simultaneously or almost immediately after her collision with him she was either hit or brushed 'by the line.
We see no negligence on the part of the defendant. If there was any negligence at all it was on the part of the plaintiff. That is what the trial court concluded and that is our conclusion also. The judgment will 'be affirmed.