Victoria v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.

Second Circuit

Victoria v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.

240 F.2d 349

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided January 22, 1957·No. No. 114, Docket 24252·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On convincing evidence Judge Weinfeld has found that the injuries for which this merchant seaman seeks maintenance and cure were caused directly and solely by his drunkenness initiated on shore leave, and, holding it immaterial whether the actual injuries occurred on shore or on libelant’s return to his ship, has held an award barred under Barlow v. Pan Atlantic S.S.Corp., 2 Cir., 101 F.2d 697. We agree with [350] this holding and with the judge’s careful analysis to conclude that other authorities cited to him had not weakened the authority of that case. We therefore affirm on his opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 141 F.Supp. 149.

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

PER CURIAM.

On convincing evidence Judge Weinfeld has found that the injuries for which this merchant seaman seeks maintenance and cure were caused directly and solely by his drunkenness initiated on shore leave, and, holding it immaterial whether the actual injuries occurred on shore or on libelant’s return to his ship, has held an award barred under Barlow v. Pan Atlantic S.S.Corp., 2 Cir., 101 F.2d 697. We agree with [350] this holding and with the judge’s careful analysis to conclude that other authorities cited to him had not weakened the authority of that case. We therefore affirm on his opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 141 F.Supp. 149.

Victoria v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., 240 F.2d 349 (2d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

240 F.2d 349 (Victoria v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related