Donald E. Barker v. Grace Line, a Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Donald E. Barker v. Grace Line, a Corporation

390 F.2d 649, 33 Cal. Comp. Cases 821, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8034, 1968 A.M.C. 1515

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1968

Docket21839

StatusPublished

This text of 390 F.2d 649 (Donald E. Barker v. Grace Line, a Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donald E. Barker v. Grace Line, a Corporation, 390 F.2d 649, 33 Cal. Comp. Cases 821, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8034, 1968 A.M.C. 1515 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was tried to a jury. The complaint contained several counts. The first count alleged negligence on the part of the defendant Grace Line and the third count alleged unseaworthiness, as the cause of the appellant’s injuries. The appeal concerns these two counts only. On the first alleged cause of action for negligence the jury found for defendants. The trial court dismissed the third cause of action upon motion of the defendant Grace Line.

Appellant was a purser and crew member of appellee’s vessel Santa Flavia While the vessel was tied up at the port of Manzanillo, Mexico, Barker decided to go into town and get a haircut about ten o’clock in the evening of the day in question. Barker went ashore, descended the gangway to the dock and walked down the pier to a place where there was an entrance from the pier to the street. The pier was lighted but after he left it and was walking in a dark place toward the street he fell into a hole which was two feet deep and two feet in diameter. This hole was between 75 and 100 feet from the bow of the vessel, according to the appellant’s assertion, and 150 feet from the bow of the vessel according to the defense.

The appellant’s brief is devoted primarily to an argument that he should recover by reason of the unseaworthiness of the ship. We affirm the action of the trial court in dismissing the cause of action for alleged unseaworthiness as it is obvious that no recovery for unseaworthiness may be had for injuries arising out of conditions so remote from the vessel as was the place where Barker was injured.

With respect to the attempt to upset the results of the verdict of the jury holding that there was no negligence chargeable to the defendant, we find no error in the record.

Appellant complains about the failure of the court below to add certain requested language to the instructions on negligence. The language thus re *650 ferred to is merely repetitious of the instructions actually given and we find the action of the court in no wise prejudicial to the appellant.

Since we find no error, 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 case was tried to a jury. The complaint contained several counts. The first count alleged negligence on the part of the defendant Grace Line and the third count alleged unseaworthiness, as the cause of the appellant’s injuries. The appeal concerns these two counts only. On the first alleged cause of action for negligence the jury found for defendants. The trial court dismissed the third cause of action upon motion of the defendant Grace Line.

Appellant was a purser and crew member of appellee’s vessel Santa Flavia While the vessel was tied up at the port of Manzanillo, Mexico, Barker decided to go into town and get a haircut about ten o’clock in the evening of the day in question. Barker went ashore, descended the gangway to the dock and walked down the pier to a place where there was an entrance from the pier to the street. The pier was lighted but after he left it and was walking in a dark place toward the street he fell into a hole which was two feet deep and two feet in diameter. This hole was between 75 and 100 feet from the bow of the vessel, according to the appellant’s assertion, and 150 feet from the bow of the vessel according to the defense.

The appellant’s brief is devoted primarily to an argument that he should recover by reason of the unseaworthiness of the ship. We affirm the action of the trial court in dismissing the cause of action for alleged unseaworthiness as it is obvious that no recovery for unseaworthiness may be had for injuries arising out of conditions so remote from the vessel as was the place where Barker was injured.

With respect to the attempt to upset the results of the verdict of the jury holding that there was no negligence chargeable to the defendant, we find no error in the record.

Appellant complains about the failure of the court below to add certain requested language to the instructions on negligence. The language thus re *650 ferred to is merely repetitious of the instructions actually given and we find the action of the court in no wise prejudicial to the appellant.

Since we find no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 F.2d 649, 33 Cal. Comp. Cases 821, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8034, 1968 A.M.C. 1515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-e-barker-v-grace-line-a-corporation-ca9-1968.