TIMMONS

v.

FAGAN

Citator

Cited By

• Theriot v. BAY Drilling Corp., 783 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1986)
  …tly applied a standard which required the plaintiff to prove that the ROME accident proximately caused the ultimate condition leading to Theriot’s patellectomy. See United States v. Arrow Stevedoring Co., 175 F. 2d 329, 331 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 904, 70 S.Ct. 307, 94 L.Ed. 557 (1949) (following a sole proximate cause standard). Based on its belief in Dr. Leonard’s testimony that the March 1981 accident was the operative cause of the injury requiring the patellectomy, the court was justified in…
• States S. S. Co. v. Rothschild Int'l Stevedoring Co., 205 F.2d 253 (9th Cir. 1953)
  …Where there is an express contract to indemnify between the owner and a stevedoring company, American Stevedores v. Porello, 330 U.S. 446, 67 S.Ct. 847, 91 L.Ed. 1011, United States v. Arrow Steve-doring Co., 9 Cir., 175 F. 2d 329, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 904, 70 S.Ct. 307, 94 L.Ed. 557, or where the stevedoring company is hired by the owner of the ship, Read v. United States, 3 Cir., 201 F. 2d 758; United States v. Rothschild International Steve-doring Co., 9 Cir., 183 F. 2d 181; Rich v. United States,…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Amerocean S.S. Co., Inc. v. Copp, 245 F.2d 291 (9th Cir. 1957)
  …6, 413-414, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143. . Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc., v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133. . See our opinion in United States v. Arrow Stevedoring Co., 9 Cir., 175 F. 2d 329, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 904, 70 S.Ct. 307, 94 L.Ed. 557; Raskin v. Victory Carriers, D.C., 124 F.Supp. 879. . In United States v. Arrow Stevedoring Co., 9 Cir., 175 F. 2d 329, 331, the stevedore raised a hatch cover but neglected to secure it by turnbuckle and gear, which wer…