Reabe v. United States Steel Co.

Third Circuit

Reabe v. United States Steel Co.

194 F.2d 398

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 1952

Docket10608

StatusPublished

This text of 194 F.2d 398 (Reabe v. United States Steel Co.) 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

Reabe v. United States Steel Co., 194 F.2d 398 (3d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment for the defendant in Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, case. The original action combined a claim for maintenance and cure and a claim for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the defendant’s negligence. The case was tried to the court. Plaintiff recovered for maintenance and cure and the defendant had a judgment in the claim for negligence. The trial court made full findings of fact. We agree with the findings.

The plaintiff was a chambermaid on a vessel on the Monongahela River. She went ashore, with permission, when the vessel was in a lock near Monessen, Pennsylvania. Returning from her errand, she was in a hurry and ran along the single gunwale of the barge although she had been instructed to use the double gunwale between the first two barges in going to- and from the lock. She was running on her way back to the vessel and. continued to do so though warned to stop by a deck hand named Gross. She ran into Gross, who was standing at the end of the first barge ready to handle a 2-inch tow line which was to be loosened from the lock. Simultaneously or almost immediately after her collision with him she was either hit or brushed 'by the line.

We see no negligence on the part of the defendant. If there was any negligence at all it was on the part of the plaintiff. That is what the trial court concluded and that is our conclusion also. The judgment will 'be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment for the defendant in Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, case. The original action combined a claim for maintenance and cure and a claim for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the defendant’s negligence. The case was tried to the court. Plaintiff recovered for maintenance and cure and the defendant had a judgment in the claim for negligence. The trial court made full findings of fact. We agree with the findings.

The plaintiff was a chambermaid on a vessel on the Monongahela River. She went ashore, with permission, when the vessel was in a lock near Monessen, Pennsylvania. Returning from her errand, she was in a hurry and ran along the single gunwale of the barge although she had been instructed to use the double gunwale between the first two barges in going to- and from the lock. She was running on her way back to the vessel and. continued to do so though warned to stop by a deck hand named Gross. She ran into Gross, who was standing at the end of the first barge ready to handle a 2-inch tow line which was to be loosened from the lock. Simultaneously or almost immediately after her collision with him she was either hit or brushed 'by the line.

We see no negligence on the part of the defendant. If there was any negligence at all it was on the part of the plaintiff. That is what the trial court concluded and that is our conclusion also. The judgment will 'be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F.2d 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reabe-v-united-states-steel-co-ca3-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack