ALBERT B. SINES, AN INCOMPETENT, BY JOHN VICTOR TILLY, GUARDIAN OF HIS ESTATE, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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's findings of fact, including the seaman's contributory negligence and reduced work life expectancy, were not clearly erroneous and were supported by substantial evidence.
A merchant seaman sued the government for injuries sustained on a government vessel. The district court found the government negligent but also found …
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 Work Life Expectancy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment in a suit in admiralty brought against the government by appellant, a merchant seaman injured while employed on a government vessel.
The district court found that the government’s negligence was a proximate cause of appellant’s injury, and that appellant suffered damages in the sum of $74,264. The court further found that appellant’s contributory negligence was a proximate cause of his injury and reduced the award by fifty per-cent. Judgment was entered in favor of appellant in the sum of $37,132.
Appellant now alleges that the court erred in finding that he was negligent. This is a factual finding which may be disturbed on appeal only if clear ly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Rederi A/B Soya v. SS Grand Grace, 369 F. 2d 159, 162-163 (9th Cir. 1966). We hold that the trial court’s finding on the record including the depositions was not clearly erroneous.
The court’s finding that appellant had a reduced work life expectancy was likewise supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Nor did the court err in failing to prepare special findings on damages. The court substantially adopted the proposed findings of fact submitted to it by appellant. Appellant made no motion for a more detailed computation of damages. Although the findings on damages were somewhat vague, there is no doubt as to the propriety of the total amount awarded. See Dwyer v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 276 F. 2d 653, 654 (2d Cir. 1960).
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sauers v. Alaska Barge & Transp., Inc., 600 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
Famous Knitwear Corp. v. Drug Fair, Inc., 493 F.2d 251 (4th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Rederi A/B Soya v. SS Grand Grace, 369 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1966)
- Carrol P. Dwyer v. Socony-Vacuum OIL Co., Inc., 276 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1960)