Henjes Marine, Inc. v. United States

Second Circuit

Henjes Marine, Inc. v. United States

176 F.2d 310

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 11, 1949

DocketNo. 256, Docket 21317

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 F.2d 310 (Henjes Marine, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henjes Marine, Inc. v. United States, 176 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM,

The facts are stated in the trial court’s opinion, D.C., 79 F.Supp. 945, and need not be again recited. On conflicting testimony the. court found that the docking operation was conducted in a normal and acceptable manner by the ship and the docking pilot; that the tug “Barbara Henjes,” which was stationed on the ship’s starboard bow, remained too long at this station despite warnings from the ship’s bridge; and that the sole cause of the tug being crushed between the ship and the pier was her own faulty handling and maneuvering. The appeal raises only questions of fact as to which the testimony of the docking pilot and the captain of the tug were in direct conflict. The appellant urges that the tug’s version of the' accident should have been accepted because it was corroborated by admissions of the master of the ship whose testimony was taken by deposition. Although the deposition tends to support the tug’s story as to the angle at which the ship approached the pier, it contains nothing which would'justify us in holding that the crucial findings of the trial judge were clearly erroneous. On the contrary, the master’s deposition supports.such findings; he testified that the tug was ordered to leave her station on the starboard ' bow “but she didn’t back out quick enough” ; she “didn’t take the opportunity she had to get out of the way in time.”

Decree affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM,

The facts are stated in the trial court’s opinion, D.C., 79 F.Supp. 945, and need not be again recited. On conflicting testimony the. court found that the docking operation was conducted in a normal and acceptable manner by the ship and the docking pilot; that the tug “Barbara Henjes,” which was stationed on the ship’s starboard bow, remained too long at this station despite warnings from the ship’s bridge; and that the sole cause of the tug being crushed between the ship and the pier was her own faulty handling and maneuvering. The appeal raises only questions of fact as to which the testimony of the docking pilot and the captain of the tug were in direct conflict. The appellant urges that the tug’s version of the' accident should have been accepted because it was corroborated by admissions of the master of the ship whose testimony was taken by deposition. Although the deposition tends to support the tug’s story as to the angle at which the ship approached the pier, it contains nothing which would'justify us in holding that the crucial findings of the trial judge were clearly erroneous. On the contrary, the master’s deposition supports.such findings; he testified that the tug was ordered to leave her station on the starboard ' bow “but she didn’t back out quick enough” ; she “didn’t take the opportunity she had to get out of the way in time.”

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F.2d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henjes-marine-inc-v-united-states-ca2-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack