Cleary v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Cleary v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co.

40 F. 908, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2604

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided December 23, 1889·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was sufficient in the evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the door or its fastening was in a condition of disrepair for a period long enough to justify the imputation of negligence. The fact, which was quite clearly shown, that the door and fastening were in good repair when the defendant assigned to the Spanish-American Company the right to collect wharfage and cranage at the pier did not relieve the defendant from its duty to keep the wharf in safe condition.

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

Per Curiam.

There was sufficient in the evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the door or its fastening was in a condition of disrepair for a period long enough to justify the imputation of negligence. The fact, which was quite clearly shown, that the door and fastening were in good repair when the defendant assigned to the Spanish-American Company the right to collect wharfage and cranage at the pier did not relieve the defendant from its duty to keep the wharf in safe condition.

Cleary v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 40 F. 908, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2604 (circtsdny 1889).

Pincite

40 F. 908 (Cleary v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.