Helen Mascuilli, Administratrix of the Estate of Albert Mascuilli, Deceased v. United States

358 F.2d 133
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided March 24, 1966·No. 15427·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us for the second time. In our judgment, upon consideration of the whole record, including, inter alia, appellant’s thorough statements of her view of the questions involved, the findings of' fact by the trial- court that the vessel and its equipment were in a seaworthy condition at all times throughout the loading operations and that the accident was caused solely by the negligent operation of the stevedoring crew as stated in finding of fact #35, are not clearly erroneous. We find that the error, if any, is clearly not substantial in the references to the signal • man, Majdowski in the trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have examined appellant’s point with reference to the trial court’s reassessment of damages. There is no necessity or use of our passing upon that argument.

The judgment of the district court will' be affirmed.

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

Helen Mascuilli, Administratrix of the Estate of Albert Mascuilli, Deceased v. United States, 358 F.2d 133 (3d Cir. 1966).

358 F.2d 133 (Helen Mascuilli, Administratrix of the Estate of Albert Mascuilli, Deceased v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mascuilli v. United States
383 F. Supp. 50 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1974)
United States v. Northern Metal Company
379 F. Supp. 1131 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1974)
Whisenant v. Brewster-Bartle Offshore Co.
319 F. Supp. 993 (E.D. Louisiana, 1970)