Sundwall v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Sundwall v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc.

196 F.2d 214, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3893

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1952

Docket13061_1

StatusPublished

This text of 196 F.2d 214 (Sundwall v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook

Sundwall v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., 196 F.2d 214, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3893 (9th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This as an appeal from a decree in admiralty, dismissing the libel of appellant, a seaman on the steamship Iran Victory, claiming damages for an injury to his eye from oil splashed therein while holding a five-gallon can into which the oil .was being poured from the bung of a fifty-four gallon drum. The issues presented by the libel are (a) that the ship was negligent in requiring appellant to hold the can in such pouring and (b) that the ship was unseaworthy in failing to supply a pump to transfer the oil from the drum to the can.

The court found and concluded that libel-ant had not maintained his burden otf proof on either the issue of negligence or unseaworthiness. On our review of the evidence, given viva voce, we find no manifest error in the court’s decree of dismissal and affirm it.

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

PER CURIAM.

This as an appeal from a decree in admiralty, dismissing the libel of appellant, a seaman on the steamship Iran Victory, claiming damages for an injury to his eye from oil splashed therein while holding a five-gallon can into which the oil .was being poured from the bung of a fifty-four gallon drum. The issues presented by the libel are (a) that the ship was negligent in requiring appellant to hold the can in such pouring and (b) that the ship was unseaworthy in failing to supply a pump to transfer the oil from the drum to the can.

The court found and concluded that libel-ant had not maintained his burden otf proof on either the issue of negligence or unseaworthiness. On our review of the evidence, given viva voce, we find no manifest error in the court’s decree of dismissal and affirm it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 F.2d 214, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sundwall-v-pacific-far-east-line-inc-ca9-1952.