Barbour v. Dravo Corp.

Third Circuit

Barbour v. Dravo Corp.

208 F.2d 899, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3947, 1954 A.M.C. 501

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 1953

Docket11059_1

StatusPublished

This text of 208 F.2d 899 (Barbour v. Dravo Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbour v. Dravo Corp., 208 F.2d 899, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3947, 1954 A.M.C. 501 (3d Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, William J. Barbour, a seaman, brought suit against the defendant, Dravo Corporation, under the Jones Act 1 for damages alleged to have been sustained in suffering a disabling skin disease from contact with fuel oil and oil fumes in the engine room of the vessel on which he was employed. In his complaint the plaintiff alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel and negligence on its part. The case was tried to the Court below without a jury. It found that (1) the vessel was seaworthy and (2) there was no negligence on the part of the defendant which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s skin disease, and accordingly, by Order, entered judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. Our review of the record discloses that the findings of the Court below and its Order are fully supported by the evidence. For the reasons stated the Order of the Court below will be affirmed.

1

. 46 U.S.C.A. §688.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, William J. Barbour, a seaman, brought suit against the defendant, Dravo Corporation, under the Jones Act 1 for damages alleged to have been sustained in suffering a disabling skin disease from contact with fuel oil and oil fumes in the engine room of the vessel on which he was employed. In his complaint the plaintiff alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel and negligence on its part. The case was tried to the Court below without a jury. It found that (1) the vessel was seaworthy and (2) there was no negligence on the part of the defendant which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s skin disease, and accordingly, by Order, entered judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. Our review of the record discloses that the findings of the Court below and its Order are fully supported by the evidence. For the reasons stated the Order of the Court below will be affirmed.

1

. 46 U.S.C.A. §688.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 F.2d 899, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3947, 1954 A.M.C. 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbour-v-dravo-corp-ca3-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack