Hildebrand v. United States

Second Circuit

Hildebrand v. United States

226 F.2d 215

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 1955

DocketNo. 242, Docket 23367

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 226 F.2d 215 (Hildebrand 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

Hildebrand v. United States, 226 F.2d 215 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As to the issues of unseaworthiness and contributory negligence, raised by the respondent’s cross-appeal, we affirm on Judge Dawson’s findings and opinion. 134 F.Supp. 514. The findings which the respondent attacks are not clearly erroneous. And under our recent holding in Poignant v. United States, 225 F.2d 595, it is of no moment that the un-seaworthy condition causing the harm may have arisen after the voyage commenced.

Both libelant and respondent, by appeal and cross-appeal, complain of the trial judge’s award of damages. But the findings on the issue of damages are also ones of fact, Lukmanis v. United States, 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 260, which we cannot disregard unless we are satisfied that they are clearly erroneous, Pedersen v. United States, 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 212 (decided June 9, 1955). Quite clearly, the award here may not be so characterized.

Affirmed as to both appeals.

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

PER CURIAM.

As to the issues of unseaworthiness and contributory negligence, raised by the respondent’s cross-appeal, we affirm on Judge Dawson’s findings and opinion. 134 F.Supp. 514. The findings which the respondent attacks are not clearly erroneous. And under our recent holding in Poignant v. United States, 225 F.2d 595, it is of no moment that the un-seaworthy condition causing the harm may have arisen after the voyage commenced.

Both libelant and respondent, by appeal and cross-appeal, complain of the trial judge’s award of damages. But the findings on the issue of damages are also ones of fact, Lukmanis v. United States, 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 260, which we cannot disregard unless we are satisfied that they are clearly erroneous, Pedersen v. United States, 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 212 (decided June 9, 1955). Quite clearly, the award here may not be so characterized.

Affirmed as to both appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 F.2d 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hildebrand-v-united-states-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack