William Bilger v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, a Corporation

Ninth Circuit

William Bilger v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, a Corporation

439 F.2d 707, 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 850, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11185, 1971 A.M.C. 2350

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1971

Docket24081_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 439 F.2d 707 (William Bilger v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, a Corporation) 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

William Bilger v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, a Corporation, 439 F.2d 707, 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 850, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11185, 1971 A.M.C. 2350 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a merchant seaman, sued the appellee, shipowner-employer to recover damages for injury to his foot, claiming that the injury was caused by the appellee’s negligence and by the unseaworthiness of its vessel. Appellant’s foot was crushed when the ship’s launch struck appellant as he was ascending a Jacob’s ladder hanging off the starboard side of the vessel. The district court found that the appellee was not negligent and that the vessel was not unseawor-thy, 304 F.Supp. 1024.

On appeal, the seaman primarily contends that the district court erred in failing to find specifically upon the seaman’s claim that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. No express finding was required. Appellee presented evidence directed to the negligence and unseaworthiness issues, and the district court made express findings on both issues. Nothing in the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur compels the trier of fact to accept any inference arising from the application of the doctrine in the face of dispelling evidence. (E.g., Sweeney v. Erving (1913) 228 U.S. 233, 33 S.Ct. 416, 57 L.Ed. 815; United Fruit Co. v. Marine Terminals Corp. (9th Cir. 1967) 376 F.2d 1007; Orr v. Southern Pacific Co. (9th Cir. 1955) 226 F.2d 841.) Appellant’s argument is simply an oblique attack on the adverse findings. We have examined the findings in the light of the record, and we have concluded that none is clearly erroneous.

Appellant’s last point is that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request belatedly to call a witness. We find no abuse of discretion in that refusal.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a merchant seaman, sued the appellee, shipowner-employer to recover damages for injury to his foot, claiming that the injury was caused by the appellee’s negligence and by the unseaworthiness of its vessel. Appellant’s foot was crushed when the ship’s launch struck appellant as he was ascending a Jacob’s ladder hanging off the starboard side of the vessel. The district court found that the appellee was not negligent and that the vessel was not unseawor-thy, 304 F.Supp. 1024.

On appeal, the seaman primarily contends that the district court erred in failing to find specifically upon the seaman’s claim that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. No express finding was required. Appellee presented evidence directed to the negligence and unseaworthiness issues, and the district court made express findings on both issues. Nothing in the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur compels the trier of fact to accept any inference arising from the application of the doctrine in the face of dispelling evidence. (E.g., Sweeney v. Erving (1913) 228 U.S. 233, 33 S.Ct. 416, 57 L.Ed. 815; United Fruit Co. v. Marine Terminals Corp. (9th Cir. 1967) 376 F.2d 1007; Orr v. Southern Pacific Co. (9th Cir. 1955) 226 F.2d 841.) Appellant’s argument is simply an oblique attack on the adverse findings. We have examined the findings in the light of the record, and we have concluded that none is clearly erroneous.

Appellant’s last point is that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request belatedly to call a witness. We find no abuse of discretion in that refusal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 F.2d 707, 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 850, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11185, 1971 A.M.C. 2350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-bilger-v-maritime-overseas-corporation-a-corporation-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack