Edwin Harling v. United States
This text of 416 F.2d 405 (Edwin Harling v. United States) 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.
Opinion
Appellant, a seaman on a United States vessel, brought this action for damages based on the alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel.
Appellant’s theory as formalized by a pretrial order was that while sleeping on the vessel in Singapore, he was bitten by a mosquito and contracted dengue fever; that the vessel was unseaworthy in that it did not have screens on the portholes to the room in which he slept.
The trial court found against appellant on the facts: that there was no custom or requirement for screens; that appellant did not carry his burden of proof as to proximate cause; that appellant might have contracted the fever in town rather than on the ship; and that the particular mosquito will not bite at nighttime.
After the court’s decision the appellant moved to amend the findings, conclusions of law and judgment, and the pretrial order to include another theory, to-wit that the ship carried the disease of dengue fever. This theory was no more valid than the first theory. The motion was denied.
The case was tried on the theory outlined in the pretrial order. Counsel, after trial and an adverse decision, was properly denied leave to amend.
*406 The doctrine of unseaworthiness does not extend to injuries caused by instrumentalities ashore having no connection with the vessel. Morales v. City of Galveston, (1962) 370 U.S. 165, 171, 82 S.Ct. 1226, 8 L.Ed.2d 412.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
416 F.2d 405, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-harling-v-united-states-ca9-1969.