OTTILIE RUTH SARA KATZ, ALSO KNOWN AS MRS. NATHAN KATZ, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CIE GENERALÉ TRANSATLANTIQUE, A CORPORATION, OWNER, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT
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 affirmed the trial court's findings, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the second injury was caused by the first.
Plaintiff injured her foot on a steamship and later fell and fractured her wrist. She sued the shipowner, attributing the second injury to the first.…
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 Admiralty Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
While a passenger on the steamship Liberte on July 4, 1956, Ottilie Ruth Sara Katz, the appellant, injured her foot in striking it against a door sill said to have been negligently constructed and inadequately lighted. Some months later, on January 8, 1957, she fell in Richmond, Virginia, and fractured her wrist, as a result of which she suffered a disability which she claims has destroyed or impaired her earning power as a beautician. She attributes the second fall and injury to unsteadiness caused by the first injury, and seeks to hold the ship liable for both.
Her action was brought in admiralty, and the Judge, who sat without a jury, accepted her version of the accident aboard ship and awarded her $3000.00 damages for the foot injury. He held, however, that she had failed to carry the burden resting upon her to prove that the second injury, in Richmond, was caused by the earlier injury to the foot while on the Liberte, and he refused to award damages against the ship for the second fall, which resulted in injury to her wrist. Mrs. Katz appealed and the ship cross-appealed.
In this court, counsel for the respective parties have argued earnestly and at length, but we perceive in the case nothing more than questions of fact as to which it was the Judge’s function to resolve the conflicting testimony. We cannot say that the Judge’s findings are clearly erroneous.
The judgment will be
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Muratore v. M/S Scotia Prince, 845 F.2d 347 (1st Cir. 1988)
-
Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 40 (S.D. Fla. 1986)…urer of the safety of the passengers. Moore v. American Scantic Line, Inc., 121 F.2d 767, 1939 AMC 1525 (2d Cir.1941). Merely because an accident occurs, a carrier does not become liable to a passenger. Katz v. Cie Generate Transatlantique, 271 F.2d 590, 1960 AMC 52 (4th Cir.1959). While there is a duty of the carrier to warn the passenger of dangers, this obligation extends only to those dangers which are not apparent and obvious to the passenger. N.V. Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederland v. Throner,…