Juan F. Marquez v. American Export Lines

Second Circuit

Juan F. Marquez v. American Export Lines

384 F.2d 920, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4578

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 1967

Docket110, Docket 30990

StatusPublished

This text of 384 F.2d 920 (Juan F. Marquez v. American Export Lines) 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

Juan F. Marquez v. American Export Lines, 384 F.2d 920, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4578 (2d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, a seaman, was injured while aboard defendant’s vessel, the S.S. Export Bay. The cause of the injury was a fall, allegedly occasioned by an encumbered condition of a catwalk built over cargo. From a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Appellant urges that reversible error was committed on the trial by the admission in evidence of appellant’s drunkenness on prior occasions and of his drinking before the accident. For a second point, appellant contends that the court failed adequately to instruct the jury as to what would constitute liability.

As to the “drunkenness” point, the testimony was relevant on the issue of plaintiff’s credibility and with relation to the amount of damages sustained, namely, time plaintiff worked. In fact, the court specifically charged that the testimony was received “solely on the issue of what is termed impeaching or attempting to impeach the credibility of a witness and, if you should get to it, on the question of determining the future employability of the witness.”

As to the adequacy of the charge with respect to unseaworthiness, the court formulated, in substance, its instructions upon decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, 1 on the subject of absolute duty to supply a seaworthy vessel and temporary conditions creating unseaworthiness. Such portions of the charge which appellant now points to were not made the subject of any exceptions upon the trial. In view of the adequacy of the charge in presenting to the jury the salient issues to be considered by it, any defects, to which no objection was taken, do not constitute reversible error. See Wilcox v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 375 F.2d 744 (2d Cir., 1967).

Judgment affirmed.

1

. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 550, 80 S.Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1960); Pinto v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, 296 F.2d 1, 4 (2d Cir. 1961); Blier v. United States Lines Co., 286 F.2d 920, 924 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 836, 82 S.Ct. 32, 7 L.Ed. 2d 37 (1961).

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, a seaman, was injured while aboard defendant’s vessel, the S.S. Export Bay. The cause of the injury was a fall, allegedly occasioned by an encumbered condition of a catwalk built over cargo. From a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Appellant urges that reversible error was committed on the trial by the admission in evidence of appellant’s drunkenness on prior occasions and of his drinking before the accident. For a second point, appellant contends that the court failed adequately to instruct the jury as to what would constitute liability.

As to the “drunkenness” point, the testimony was relevant on the issue of plaintiff’s credibility and with relation to the amount of damages sustained, namely, time plaintiff worked. In fact, the court specifically charged that the testimony was received “solely on the issue of what is termed impeaching or attempting to impeach the credibility of a witness and, if you should get to it, on the question of determining the future employability of the witness.”

As to the adequacy of the charge with respect to unseaworthiness, the court formulated, in substance, its instructions upon decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, 1 on the subject of absolute duty to supply a seaworthy vessel and temporary conditions creating unseaworthiness. Such portions of the charge which appellant now points to were not made the subject of any exceptions upon the trial. In view of the adequacy of the charge in presenting to the jury the salient issues to be considered by it, any defects, to which no objection was taken, do not constitute reversible error. See Wilcox v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 375 F.2d 744 (2d Cir., 1967).

Judgment affirmed.

1

. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 550, 80 S.Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1960); Pinto v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, 296 F.2d 1, 4 (2d Cir. 1961); Blier v. United States Lines Co., 286 F.2d 920, 924 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 836, 82 S.Ct. 32, 7 L.Ed. 2d 37 (1961).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 F.2d 920, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-f-marquez-v-american-export-lines-ca2-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack