Clarence Todd v. The Peninsular and Occidental Steamship Company

Fifth Circuit

Clarence Todd v. The Peninsular and Occidental Steamship Company

326 F.2d 196, 1967 A.M.C. 561

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 1963

Docket20215

StatusPublished

This text of 326 F.2d 196 (Clarence Todd v. The Peninsular and Occidental Steamship Company) 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

Clarence Todd v. The Peninsular and Occidental Steamship Company, 326 F.2d 196, 1967 A.M.C. 561 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by appellant Todd against The Peninsular and Occidental Steamship Company upon two counts; viz., a claim of unseaworthiness and a claim for maintenance and cure. As to the unseaworthiness count, the trial judge found that libelant did not receive injuries while aboard ship and therefore he failed to prove injury due to unseaworthiness. The claim for maintenance and cure was also denied, the trial court finding that libelant had no permanent disability and that he had been cared for by the Company until he reached maximum medical improvement.

There was substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court and we hold that said findings were not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by appellant Todd against The Peninsular and Occidental Steamship Company upon two counts; viz., a claim of unseaworthiness and a claim for maintenance and cure. As to the unseaworthiness count, the trial judge found that libelant did not receive injuries while aboard ship and therefore he failed to prove injury due to unseaworthiness. The claim for maintenance and cure was also denied, the trial court finding that libelant had no permanent disability and that he had been cared for by the Company until he reached maximum medical improvement.

There was substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court and we hold that said findings were not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F.2d 196, 1967 A.M.C. 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-todd-v-the-peninsular-and-occidental-steamship-company-ca5-1963.