Arnold Bailey, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Kawasaki-Kisen, K.K., Defendant-Appellee-Cross American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Intervenor

Fifth Circuit

Arnold Bailey, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Kawasaki-Kisen, K.K., Defendant-Appellee-Cross American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Intervenor

478 F.2d 839, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9743, 1973 A.M.C. 2289

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 1973

Docket73-1350

StatusPublished

This text of 478 F.2d 839 (Arnold Bailey, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Kawasaki-Kisen, K.K., Defendant-Appellee-Cross American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Intervenor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold Bailey, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Kawasaki-Kisen, K.K., Defendant-Appellee-Cross American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Intervenor, 478 F.2d 839, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9743, 1973 A.M.C. 2289 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this case, Arnold Bailey brought suit against the KAWASAKI-KISEN, K.K., aboard which he had been working as a longshoreman, alleging that he sustained certain injuries as a result of the vessel’s unseaworthiness. Trial was had before a jury and a judgment was returned in favor of the defendant KAWASAKI-KISEN, K.K. On appeal this court reversed and remanded for a new trial because of the improper exclusion of evidence. Bailey v. Kawasaki-Kisen, K.K., 455 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1972). The necessary facts are set forth in that opinion. At the retrial of this case the jury was waived. Upon a full consideration of the original record, supplemented by the evidence which had theretofore been excluded, the district court found the vessel to be unseaworthy and further concluded that this unseaworthiness was the proximate cause of Bailey’s injuries. Damages were awarded in the amount of $5,089.55. 1 Bailey appeals from the district court’s assessment of damages and KAWASAKI-KISEN, K.K. cross-appeals from its finding of liability based on unseaworthiness. We affirm the district court’s judgment in all respects.

On this appeal essentially what both parties seek is a review of the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the trial court’s conclusions on the unseaworthiness and damages issues. A careful review of the briefs and record in this case discloses ample evidence to support the district court’s determination that the vessel was unseaworthy due to an excessive amount of grease on both the cable and winch drum and that this condition caused the boom to fall, resulting in Bailey’s injury. We find also that the district court’s award of damages was similarly supported by the evidence. It held that any disability suffered by Bailey had terminated within thirteen weeks of the date of the accident if not in a shorter span of time. The trial court considered and specifically rejected the possibility that there was any connection between the accident and Bailey’s complaints of disability and pain beyond the period for which he was permitted to recover damages. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. Damages were allocated as follows :

Loss of wages for 13 weeks at $78.18 $1,016.34

Medical expenses 573.21

Pain and suffering 3,500.00

Total $5,089.55

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In this case, Arnold Bailey brought suit against the KAWASAKI-KISEN, K.K., aboard which he had been working as a longshoreman, alleging that he sustained certain injuries as a result of the vessel’s unseaworthiness. Trial was had before a jury and a judgment was returned in favor of the defendant KAWASAKI-KISEN, K.K. On appeal this court reversed and remanded for a new trial because of the improper exclusion of evidence. Bailey v. Kawasaki-Kisen, K.K., 455 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1972). The necessary facts are set forth in that opinion. At the retrial of this case the jury was waived. Upon a full consideration of the original record, supplemented by the evidence which had theretofore been excluded, the district court found the vessel to be unseaworthy and further concluded that this unseaworthiness was the proximate cause of Bailey’s injuries. Damages were awarded in the amount of $5,089.55. 1 Bailey appeals from the district court’s assessment of damages and KAWASAKI-KISEN, K.K. cross-appeals from its finding of liability based on unseaworthiness. We affirm the district court’s judgment in all respects.

On this appeal essentially what both parties seek is a review of the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the trial court’s conclusions on the unseaworthiness and damages issues. A careful review of the briefs and record in this case discloses ample evidence to support the district court’s determination that the vessel was unseaworthy due to an excessive amount of grease on both the cable and winch drum and that this condition caused the boom to fall, resulting in Bailey’s injury. We find also that the district court’s award of damages was similarly supported by the evidence. It held that any disability suffered by Bailey had terminated within thirteen weeks of the date of the accident if not in a shorter span of time. The trial court considered and specifically rejected the possibility that there was any connection between the accident and Bailey’s complaints of disability and pain beyond the period for which he was permitted to recover damages. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. Damages were allocated as follows :

Loss of wages for 13 weeks at $78.18 $1,016.34

Medical expenses 573.21

Pain and suffering 3,500.00

Total $5,089.55

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 F.2d 839, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9743, 1973 A.M.C. 2289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-bailey-plaintiff-appellant-cross-v-kawasaki-kisen-kk-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack