Phillip Joseph Tinerella v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
This text of 486 F.2d 1370 (Phillip Joseph Tinerella v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The judgment in this admiralty injury case is affirmed.
As a question of negligence, we cannot find the district court’s findings clearly erroneous.
As to any strict liability theory, the circumstance that the district court in its view of the evidence could not connect Bethlehem (the repairs contractor) to missing bolts, which absence was a factor in causation, relieves us of the necessity of exploring the limits of such a theory.
Plaintiff, a sailor of the United States Navy, obviously had a strong case for unseaworthiness against the government except that his injury was one where his status as a sailor denied him the right to sue. (The navy owned the ship.) The government has its own provisions to compensate those in the service injured in the line of duty.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
486 F.2d 1370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillip-joseph-tinerella-v-bethlehem-steel-corp-ca9-1973.