Joseph Bellisano v. United States of America (Respondent), and John W. McGrath Corporation (Impleaded Respondent)

245 F.2d 869, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4740, 1958 A.M.C. 85
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJuly 1, 1957
Docket12183_1
StatusPublished

This text of 245 F.2d 869 (Joseph Bellisano v. United States of America (Respondent), and John W. McGrath Corporation (Impleaded Respondent)) 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
Joseph Bellisano v. United States of America (Respondent), and John W. McGrath Corporation (Impleaded Respondent), 245 F.2d 869, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4740, 1958 A.M.C. 85 (3d Cir. 1957).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The United States of America, the respondent-petitioner-appellant, and the owner of the vessel on which Bellisano, a longshoreman, was injured, seeks reversal of the judgment and asks that the case be remanded to the end that the United States may have the benefit of an assessment of damages alleged to be due from McGrath Corporation, appellee-impleaded-respondent. The point at issue is a comparatively narrow one. The trial court found that the accident to Bellisano occurred because the bur-ton winch, operated by McGrath Corporation, “conked out” and did not re *870 spond properly to its control, causing the cargo to swing upon Bellisano, injuring him. The appellant takes the position that the accident could not have occurred as the trial court found; that undisputed and incontrovertible evidence demonstrated that the injury happened because the respective operators of the burton winch and the up-and-down winch failed to coordinate the speed of the two winches plus the “sub-normal” operating condition of the winches; and that these circumstances bring the case squarely within the provisions of the stevedoring contract which entitles the United States to indemnification.

We have examined the record and we cannot agree. How the accident occurred was a question of fact and we cannot say that the evidence unequivocally supports the appellant’s position and that therefore the finding of the trial court was clearly erroneous. McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Related

McAllister v. United States
348 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 F.2d 869, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4740, 1958 A.M.C. 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-bellisano-v-united-states-of-america-respondent-and-john-w-ca3-1957.