Spinelli v. Isthmian Steamship Co.

Second Circuit

Spinelli v. Isthmian Steamship Co.

326 F.2d 870

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 1964

DocketNo. 175, Docket 28385

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 326 F.2d 870 (Spinelli v. Isthmian Steamship Co.) 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

Spinelli v. Isthmian Steamship Co., 326 F.2d 870 (2d Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Alfonso Spinelli, a longshoreman, was injured when helping to load cargo aboard the SS Steelmaker, owned by respondent-appellee Isthmian Steamship Company. The libel charges respondent-appellee with responsibility for the fall of a draft of steel pipe that was being hoisted in a sling from the pier to the vessel. The draft fell back because the brake on the ship’s winch slipped and libellant-appellant was injured. The evidence amply sustains the finding of the trial judge that the winch was not defective and that the accident happened because the stevedore boss changed from drafts of 6 pipes to a draft of 9 pipes, although warned that such a load was too heavy for the winch. We affirm on the authority of Puddu v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Company, 2 Cir., 1962, 303 F.2d 752, cert, denied, 371 U.S. 840, 83 S.Ct. 67, 9 L.Ed.2d 75.

We affirm the decree in all respects, including the part thereof dismissing the cross-claim of the shipowner against the stevedore, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., and involved in Isthmian’s protective cross-appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Alfonso Spinelli, a longshoreman, was injured when helping to load cargo aboard the SS Steelmaker, owned by respondent-appellee Isthmian Steamship Company. The libel charges respondent-appellee with responsibility for the fall of a draft of steel pipe that was being hoisted in a sling from the pier to the vessel. The draft fell back because the brake on the ship’s winch slipped and libellant-appellant was injured. The evidence amply sustains the finding of the trial judge that the winch was not defective and that the accident happened because the stevedore boss changed from drafts of 6 pipes to a draft of 9 pipes, although warned that such a load was too heavy for the winch. We affirm on the authority of Puddu v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Company, 2 Cir., 1962, 303 F.2d 752, cert, denied, 371 U.S. 840, 83 S.Ct. 67, 9 L.Ed.2d 75.

We affirm the decree in all respects, including the part thereof dismissing the cross-claim of the shipowner against the stevedore, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., and involved in Isthmian’s protective cross-appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spinelli-v-isthmian-steamship-co-ca2-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack