Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Casbon

Fifth Circuit

Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Casbon

417 F.2d 1040

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 24, 1969·No. No. 25690·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The facts of this case with all of the contradictions and inconsistencies typical of a fracas, whether land-based, waterborne, or amphibious, are set forth in the District Court’s opinion, Casbon v. Waterman Steamship Corporation, E.D.La., 1967, 274 F.Supp. 481. Whatever doubts there might be concerning liability based upon unseaworthiness from the pugnacious predisposition of the night mate, there was adequate basis under Jamison v. Encarnacion, 1930, 281 U.S. 635, 50 S.Ct. 440, 74 L.Ed. 1082, for concluding that the night mate considered himself to be exerting discipline and command within the confines of his jurisdiction so that misuse of excessive force constituted negligence for which the shipowner was responsible. The District Judge’s fact conclusions pass muster under F.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and the resulting judgment is amply supported on legal principles. That includes the denial of recovery over against the stevedore and the cross appeal complaining of the damage award.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The facts of this case with all of the contradictions and inconsistencies typical of a fracas, whether land-based, waterborne, or amphibious, are set forth in the District Court’s opinion, Casbon v. Waterman Steamship Corporation, E.D.La., 1967, 274 F.Supp. 481. Whatever doubts there might be concerning liability based upon unseaworthiness from the pugnacious predisposition of the night mate, there was adequate basis under Jamison v. Encarnacion, 1930, 281 U.S. 635, 50 S.Ct. 440, 74 L.Ed. 1082, for concluding that the night mate considered himself to be exerting discipline and command within the confines of his jurisdiction so that misuse of excessive force constituted negligence for which the shipowner was responsible. The District Judge’s fact conclusions pass muster under F.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and the resulting judgment is amply supported on legal principles. That includes the denial of recovery over against the stevedore and the cross appeal complaining of the damage award.

Affirmed.

Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Casbon, 417 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

417 F.2d 1040 (Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Casbon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Waterman Steamship Corporation and Waterman of Puerto Rico, Usa, Inc. v. Marcus J. Casbon, Ryan Stevedoring Company, and the Travelers Insurance Company, Marcus J. Casbon, Ryan Stevedoring Company, and the Travelers Insurance Company v. Waterman Steamship Corporation and Waterman of Puerto Rico, Usa, Inc.

417 F.2d 1040 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)

Opinion

Related