William Curry v. Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., Formerly Known as and Doing Business as Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc.

Fifth Circuit

William Curry v. Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., Formerly Known as and Doing Business as Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc.

342 F.2d 995, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6258

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 1965

Docket21597_1

StatusPublished

This text of 342 F.2d 995 (William Curry v. Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., Formerly Known as and Doing Business as Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Curry v. Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., Formerly Known as and Doing Business as Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc., 342 F.2d 995, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6258 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this action appellant sought to recover damages because of personal injuries received by him while working as a longshoreman for his employer, a steve-doring company, in the loading of rail *996 road Steel in the hold of a vessel owned by appellee. Appellant presented two theories of recovery, namely, (1) negligence of appellee, its servants, agents or employees and (2) unseaworthiness of appellee’s vessel. A jury trial was had. At the close of the evidence, the trial court concluded that there was no substantial evidence either of actionable negligence on the part of appellee, its agents, servants or employees or of the vessel being unseaworthy and granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment for the appellee. Appellant, in this appeal, complains of that action of the trial court.

A careful review of the record convinces us that the trial court was correct in its determination that there was no substantial evidence to support either appellant’s theories of recovery. The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.-

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

PER CURIAM:

In this action appellant sought to recover damages because of personal injuries received by him while working as a longshoreman for his employer, a steve-doring company, in the loading of rail *996 road Steel in the hold of a vessel owned by appellee. Appellant presented two theories of recovery, namely, (1) negligence of appellee, its servants, agents or employees and (2) unseaworthiness of appellee’s vessel. A jury trial was had. At the close of the evidence, the trial court concluded that there was no substantial evidence either of actionable negligence on the part of appellee, its agents, servants or employees or of the vessel being unseaworthy and granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment for the appellee. Appellant, in this appeal, complains of that action of the trial court.

A careful review of the record convinces us that the trial court was correct in its determination that there was no substantial evidence to support either appellant’s theories of recovery. The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 F.2d 995, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-curry-v-delta-steamship-lines-inc-formerly-known-as-and-doing-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack