Monroe Taylor v. The Ss Helen Lykes, Her Engines, Tackle, Funiture, Etc.

Fifth Circuit

Monroe Taylor v. The Ss Helen Lykes, Her Engines, Tackle, Funiture, Etc.

402 F.2d 777, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5053, 1969 A.M.C. 61

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 31, 1968

Docket25101

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 402 F.2d 777 (Monroe Taylor v. The Ss Helen Lykes, Her Engines, Tackle, Funiture, Etc.) 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

Monroe Taylor v. The Ss Helen Lykes, Her Engines, Tackle, Funiture, Etc., 402 F.2d 777, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5053, 1969 A.M.C. 61 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal involves an action in Admiralty brought by a longshoreman to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while he was at work aboard a merchant vessel, stowing bagged cargo. The district judge rejected the claims of the appellant in detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered dismissal of the suit. We affirm.

The district court erred, asserts appellant, in not finding the ship unseaworthy because, first, “the plan of operation for stowing cargo was unsafe” ; 1 and second, “men were substituted for equipment.” 2 Construing these contentions with what liberality we may, they just are not applicable here.

*778 There can, of course, be no dispute that, given the appropriate facts, an improper method of handling cargo would render a vessel unseaworthy. But, where as here, the injury occurred when experienced plaintiff failed to use suitable equipment then available, it cannot be held that there was a “method” or “plan” of loading which was improper. Appellant’s reliance on Waldron, supra, is misplaced. There, the assignment of insufficient manual assistance constituted the unseaworthy condition. But here, the record is utterly barren of even a suggestion that too few longshoremen were assigned to stow the bags. The case begins and remains a simple one. Appellant and his co-worker took it upon themselves not to make use of available pallet boards as a platform from which to stow the cargo, and not to utilize the manual assistance of other longshoremen then available.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs and argument, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is affirmed on the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth in that court’s opinion. 268 F.Supp. 932.

1

. Citing Morales v. City of Galveston, 370 U.S. 165, 82 S.Ct. 1226, 8 L.Ed.2d 412 (1962).

2

. Citing, Waldron v. Moore-McCormack, 386 U.S. 724, 87 S.Ct. 1410, 18 L.Ed.2d 482 (1967).

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal involves an action in Admiralty brought by a longshoreman to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while he was at work aboard a merchant vessel, stowing bagged cargo. The district judge rejected the claims of the appellant in detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered dismissal of the suit. We affirm.

The district court erred, asserts appellant, in not finding the ship unseaworthy because, first, “the plan of operation for stowing cargo was unsafe” ; 1 and second, “men were substituted for equipment.” 2 Construing these contentions with what liberality we may, they just are not applicable here.

*778 There can, of course, be no dispute that, given the appropriate facts, an improper method of handling cargo would render a vessel unseaworthy. But, where as here, the injury occurred when experienced plaintiff failed to use suitable equipment then available, it cannot be held that there was a “method” or “plan” of loading which was improper. Appellant’s reliance on Waldron, supra, is misplaced. There, the assignment of insufficient manual assistance constituted the unseaworthy condition. But here, the record is utterly barren of even a suggestion that too few longshoremen were assigned to stow the bags. The case begins and remains a simple one. Appellant and his co-worker took it upon themselves not to make use of available pallet boards as a platform from which to stow the cargo, and not to utilize the manual assistance of other longshoremen then available.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs and argument, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is affirmed on the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth in that court’s opinion. 268 F.Supp. 932.

1

. Citing Morales v. City of Galveston, 370 U.S. 165, 82 S.Ct. 1226, 8 L.Ed.2d 412 (1962).

2

. Citing, Waldron v. Moore-McCormack, 386 U.S. 724, 87 S.Ct. 1410, 18 L.Ed.2d 482 (1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 F.2d 777, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5053, 1969 A.M.C. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-taylor-v-the-ss-helen-lykes-her-engines-tackle-funiture-etc-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack