Peter Caparro v. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, N.V.

Second Circuit

Peter Caparro v. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, N.V.

503 F.2d 1053, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6562

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 9, 1974

Docket22, Docket 74-1359

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 503 F.2d 1053 (Peter Caparro v. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, N.V.) 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

Peter Caparro v. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, N.V., 503 F.2d 1053, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6562 (2d Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Peter Caparro, a longshoreman, appeals from a judgment for defendant Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, N.V., owner of the vessel upon which plaintiff allegedly sustained injury in September 1971. Plaintiff brought this suit, claiming negligence and unseaworthiness, 1 a year later in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. After a separate trial on liability, Judge Harold R. Tyler, Jr., directed a verdict for defendant on the negligence claim 2 but submitted the unseaworthiness issue to the jury. After a verdict for plaintiff, the judge granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Upon the most liberal view of the evidence, plaintiff showed only that an accident occurred when a carton weighing over 250 pounds was placed by plaintiff’s hatch boss upon the top of other cartons and almost immediately fell down. However difficult it may sometimes be to draw the line between a pre-existing unseaworthy “condition” *1054 and the isolated, personal unforeseeable negligent act of a fellow longshoreman, see Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 500, 91 S.Ct. 514, 27 L.Ed.2d 562 (1971); cf. Siderewicz v. Enso-Gutzeit O/Y, 453 F.2d 1094 (2d Cir. 1972), we have no such problem here. There was simply no evidence that the supporting cartons were less than normally sturdy or that the stowage was unsafe before the very heavy carton was placed on the top. The accident occurred as part of a continuous, perhaps negligent, operation which never gave rise to an unseaworthy “condition.”

Judgment affirmed.

1

. One of the 1972 amendments of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), now prevents a claim of unseaworthiness by a longshoreman, but does not apply to this claim.

2

. Plaintiff does not contest this aspect of the judgment,

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

PER CURIAM:

Peter Caparro, a longshoreman, appeals from a judgment for defendant Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, N.V., owner of the vessel upon which plaintiff allegedly sustained injury in September 1971. Plaintiff brought this suit, claiming negligence and unseaworthiness, 1 a year later in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. After a separate trial on liability, Judge Harold R. Tyler, Jr., directed a verdict for defendant on the negligence claim 2 but submitted the unseaworthiness issue to the jury. After a verdict for plaintiff, the judge granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Upon the most liberal view of the evidence, plaintiff showed only that an accident occurred when a carton weighing over 250 pounds was placed by plaintiff’s hatch boss upon the top of other cartons and almost immediately fell down. However difficult it may sometimes be to draw the line between a pre-existing unseaworthy “condition” *1054 and the isolated, personal unforeseeable negligent act of a fellow longshoreman, see Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 500, 91 S.Ct. 514, 27 L.Ed.2d 562 (1971); cf. Siderewicz v. Enso-Gutzeit O/Y, 453 F.2d 1094 (2d Cir. 1972), we have no such problem here. There was simply no evidence that the supporting cartons were less than normally sturdy or that the stowage was unsafe before the very heavy carton was placed on the top. The accident occurred as part of a continuous, perhaps negligent, operation which never gave rise to an unseaworthy “condition.”

Judgment affirmed.

1

. One of the 1972 amendments of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), now prevents a claim of unseaworthiness by a longshoreman, but does not apply to this claim.

2

. Plaintiff does not contest this aspect of the judgment,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 F.2d 1053, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-caparro-v-koninklijke-nederlandsche-stoomboot-maatschappij-nv-ca2-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack