Herbert Goodwyn v. The Dredge Ginger Ann, Etc., and Ayers Materials Co., Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Herbert Goodwyn v. The Dredge Ginger Ann, Etc., and Ayers Materials Co., Inc.

342 F.2d 197, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6255, 1965 A.M.C. 1386

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 1965

Docket21630

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 342 F.2d 197 (Herbert Goodwyn v. The Dredge Ginger Ann, Etc., and Ayers Materials Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herbert Goodwyn v. The Dredge Ginger Ann, Etc., and Ayers Materials Co., Inc., 342 F.2d 197, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6255, 1965 A.M.C. 1386 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Goodwyn appeals from the dismissal of a libel which sought, inter alia, to recover maintenance and cure and damages for failure to provide maintenance and cure. In October 1958 Goodwyn contracted poliomyelitis while employed aboard the appellee’s vessel. He filed the instant suit approximately four and one-half years later, on July 29, 1963, asserting that his delay was excusable because he was unaware of his right to claim maintenance and cure from his employer. The appellee excepted to the libel on the ground of laches, pleading prejudice through probable loss of insurance protection and the unavailability of numerous witnesses. The trial court assigned written reasons for his dismissal of the suit. He drew upon the Jones Act’s three-year statute of limitations as an appropriate analogy and concluded that, in light of the prejudice which had accrued to appellee, the li-belant had not demonstrated a sufficient excuse for the delay in filing his claim.

Although the question of laches depends primarily on the equitable considerations of each particular case and is not to be measured strictly by the analogous limitation statute, Czaplicki v. The S.S. Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U.S. 525, 533-534, 76 S.Ct. 946, 951-952, 100 L.Ed. 1387, 1395 (1955), invocation of the doctrine is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, Gardner v. Panama R. Co., 342 U.S. 29, 30-31, 72 S.Ct. 12, 13, 96 L.Ed. 31, 36 *198 (1951); Oroz v. American President Lines, 259 F.2d 636, 640 (2 Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 908, 79 S.Ct. 584, 3 L.Ed.2d 572. In view of the evidence, including the affidavits of the parties and the insurance policies in question, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the suit.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Goodwyn appeals from the dismissal of a libel which sought, inter alia, to recover maintenance and cure and damages for failure to provide maintenance and cure. In October 1958 Goodwyn contracted poliomyelitis while employed aboard the appellee’s vessel. He filed the instant suit approximately four and one-half years later, on July 29, 1963, asserting that his delay was excusable because he was unaware of his right to claim maintenance and cure from his employer. The appellee excepted to the libel on the ground of laches, pleading prejudice through probable loss of insurance protection and the unavailability of numerous witnesses. The trial court assigned written reasons for his dismissal of the suit. He drew upon the Jones Act’s three-year statute of limitations as an appropriate analogy and concluded that, in light of the prejudice which had accrued to appellee, the li-belant had not demonstrated a sufficient excuse for the delay in filing his claim.

Although the question of laches depends primarily on the equitable considerations of each particular case and is not to be measured strictly by the analogous limitation statute, Czaplicki v. The S.S. Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U.S. 525, 533-534, 76 S.Ct. 946, 951-952, 100 L.Ed. 1387, 1395 (1955), invocation of the doctrine is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, Gardner v. Panama R. Co., 342 U.S. 29, 30-31, 72 S.Ct. 12, 13, 96 L.Ed. 31, 36 *198 (1951); Oroz v. American President Lines, 259 F.2d 636, 640 (2 Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 908, 79 S.Ct. 584, 3 L.Ed.2d 572. In view of the evidence, including the affidavits of the parties and the insurance policies in question, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the suit.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 F.2d 197, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6255, 1965 A.M.C. 1386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-goodwyn-v-the-dredge-ginger-ann-etc-and-ayers-materials-co-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack