WALTER MCCALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATES MARINE LINES, INC., APPELLEE
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 trial court did not err in entering judgment on the jury's special verdict and denying the motion for a new trial.
A longshoreman (appellant) was injured when his leg went through a hatch cover on a vessel. He sued the shipowner, alleging unseaworthiness and neglig…
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 Breach Of Warranty Of Workmanlike Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant complains of an adverse jury verdict and judgment thereon in his suit against the owner of the vessel SS BLUEGRASS STATE. At the time of his injury plaintiff was employed as a longshoreman by the stevedore and was working on the vessel. In the course of his activities one of his legs went through a hatch cover while he was walking across the hatch. The appellant contended that the ship was unseaworthy and that the shipowner was negligent in that one of the hatch boards was too short so that it tilted when he stepped on it. The United States had hired the stevedore pursuant to an agreement between the vessel owner and the stevedore. The vessel owner impleaded the United States and the stevedore alleging a breach of warranty of workmanlike performance of the stevedoring duties. The stevedore assumed the defense of the United States.
The trial court concluded that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the ship and refused to submit that issue to the jury. In answer to special interrogatories the jury found that the vessel was not unseaworthy; and further found that the stevedore had breached its warranty of workmanlike . performance and that such breach was the proximate cause of appellant’s injuries.
The appellant contends that the trial court committed error in entering judgment on the special verdict of the jury and in denying his motion for a new trial. It is contended that the answers of the jury to the special interrogatories were inconsistent with each other when considered in light of the weight of the evidence. It is further contended that there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the shipowner to require the submission of that issue to the jury for its determination. We are unable to agree with the appellant’s contentions and conclude that no error was committed. See Guarracino v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 333 F. 2d 646 (2 Cir. 1964); Strachan Shipping Co. v. Koninklyke Neder. S.M.N.V., 324 F. 2d 746 (5 Cir. 1963), cert. den., 376 U.S. 954, 84 S. Ct. 969, 11 L.Ed.2d 972.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strachan Shipping Co. v. Koninklyke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maalschappy, N.V., 324 F.2d 746 (5th Cir. 1963)
- S. Pilots Ass'n v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 376 U.S. 954 (U.S. 1964)
- Strachan Shipping Co. v. Koninklyke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maalschappy, 376 U.S. 954 (U.S. 1964)
- Guarracino v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., Inc., 333 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1964)