Eckert v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.

Third Circuit

Eckert v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.

103 F.2d 885, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3686, 1939 A.M.C. 377

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 1939

DocketNo. 6516

StatusPublished

This text of 103 F.2d 885 (Eckert v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.) 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

Eckert v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 103 F.2d 885, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3686, 1939 A.M.C. 377 (3d Cir. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The appellant filed a libel in personam in admiralty to recover damages and maintenance for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while serving as oiler on the steamship “Emidio”. The appellant claimed that he sustained permanent injury to his back by reason of being required to swing a sledge hammer which was too heavy for a man of his size and weight. He later amended the libel and alleged that the appellee was negligent in that it failed to provide a safe scaffold, permitted the scaffold to be covered with oil and grease, and permitted the sledge hammer to be covered with grease. The District Court dismissed the libel. It found as a fact that there was no negligence; that the appellant had received the care and maintenance to which he was entitled; and that the appellant’s claim was barred by releases which he had signed. The releases were undoubtedly valid. The Adonis, 3 Cir., 38 F.2d 743.

We find no error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Decree affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The appellant filed a libel in personam in admiralty to recover damages and maintenance for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while serving as oiler on the steamship “Emidio”. The appellant claimed that he sustained permanent injury to his back by reason of being required to swing a sledge hammer which was too heavy for a man of his size and weight. He later amended the libel and alleged that the appellee was negligent in that it failed to provide a safe scaffold, permitted the scaffold to be covered with oil and grease, and permitted the sledge hammer to be covered with grease. The District Court dismissed the libel. It found as a fact that there was no negligence; that the appellant had received the care and maintenance to which he was entitled; and that the appellant’s claim was barred by releases which he had signed. The releases were undoubtedly valid. The Adonis, 3 Cir., 38 F.2d 743.

We find no error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F.2d 885, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3686, 1939 A.M.C. 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckert-v-socony-vacuum-oil-co-ca3-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack