John E. Honchorck v. Dravo Corporation

Third Circuit

John E. Honchorck v. Dravo Corporation

372 F.2d 92, 1969 A.M.C. 2499

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 5, 1967

Docket16066_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 372 F.2d 92 (John E. Honchorck v. Dravo Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John E. Honchorck v. Dravo Corporation, 372 F.2d 92, 1969 A.M.C. 2499 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This libel was tried on the theory that libellant was injured as a result of the negligent revving of the engines on respondent’s vessel. Libellant'maintains that he was beaching his motorboat when respondent’s vessel, the “Freedom,” accelerated its engines causing waves or swells which, in turn, caused his small craft to pitch and strike him on the side of his face. The district court, as the trier of fact, found the testimony of the sole liability witness, libellant’s son, to be incredible and entered judgment for the respondent on the grounds that libellant had failed to establish the cause of the accident. Issues of credibility are for the fact finder; such findings are not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Cf., M. W. Zack Metal Co. v. S.S. Birmingham City, 311 F.2d 334 (C.A.2, 1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 816, 84 S.Ct. 50, 11 L.Ed.2d 51 (1963). Our review of the record discloses nothing which would support a elearly-erroneous finding.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This libel was tried on the theory that libellant was injured as a result of the negligent revving of the engines on respondent’s vessel. Libellant'maintains that he was beaching his motorboat when respondent’s vessel, the “Freedom,” accelerated its engines causing waves or swells which, in turn, caused his small craft to pitch and strike him on the side of his face. The district court, as the trier of fact, found the testimony of the sole liability witness, libellant’s son, to be incredible and entered judgment for the respondent on the grounds that libellant had failed to establish the cause of the accident. Issues of credibility are for the fact finder; such findings are not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Cf., M. W. Zack Metal Co. v. S.S. Birmingham City, 311 F.2d 334 (C.A.2, 1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 816, 84 S.Ct. 50, 11 L.Ed.2d 51 (1963). Our review of the record discloses nothing which would support a elearly-erroneous finding.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Christopher Mitchell v. F/v Janice, Official Number 560264, Her Engines, Tackle and Appurtenances Ocean Warrior Inc., Corporation, and Warrior Fleet, Inc., a Corporation, in Rem and in Personam, Christopher Mitchell v. F/v Janice, Official Number 560264, Her Engines, Tackle and Appurtenances Ocean Warrior Inc., Corporation, and Warrior Fleet, Inc., a Corporation, in Rem and in Personam

15 F.3d 1087 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 F.2d 92, 1969 A.M.C. 2499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-e-honchorck-v-dravo-corporation-ca3-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack