Deitz v. United States, 11679.
Decision Date | 29 December 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 11679.,11679. |
Citation | 228 F.2d 494 |
Parties | Gordon DEITZ v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Thomas E. Byrne, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (W. Wilson White, U. S. Atty., Robert Cox, Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Philip Dorfman, Philadelphia, Pa. (Dorfman & Pechner, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff who, at the time of his alleged accident, was employed as a seaman in the capacity of an oiler on board the respondent's vessel "James Fergus." The libellant has been awarded damages totaling $45,573.72. By separate findings these are divided as follows: for lost wages $573.72; for maintenance $108.00; for loss of future earning power $35,000; and for pain, worry, fear and anxiety $10,000.
In seeking review here, the appellant seems to suggest to us a different view from that we hold about the effect of McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 8. It seems to us that the Supreme Court gave us a rule in as clear words as the English language affords. It was said: This forthright statement requires no gloss from us.
The appellant urges three main points. One is to cast doubt upon the libellant's version of his accident. There is no basis for disputing the categorical findings of fact made by the trial court as to this. The court found that the libellant was struck in the face and eye by paint which fell from the brush of persons working above him and that this was due to the negligence of the painters.
Appellant also challenges the causal connection between the macular chorioretinitis from which the libellant suffers and the accident. There was medical testimony supporting the libellant's case on this point but it is called insufficient by the appellant. This phase of the case greatly resembles the situation we dealt with in Brett v. J. M. Carras, Inc., 3 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 451 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sevigny's Case
...Consolidated Gas Co., 324 Mass. 623, 628, 88 N.E.2d 1; Brett v. J. M. Carras, Inc., 3 Cir., 203 F.2d 451, 453-454; Deitz v. United States, 3 Cir., 228 F.2d 494, 495; Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.) § 662. The instant case is more like our cases last cited in that the expert's underlying knowledg......
-
Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company
...we are to overrule what we said in Brett v. J. M. Carras, Inc., 3 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 451, which was approved by us in Deitz v. United States, 3 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 494. See also Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co., 1959, 8 Wis.2d 343, 99 N.W.2d 163; People of the State of New York v. W......
-
Tyndall v. Conduit and Foundation Corporation, 12875.
...set them aside even if we would. See McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S. Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20, and Deitz v. United States, 3 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 494, 495. The issue of Conduit's negligence remains for disposition. 585, after the hurricane, was left in a foreseeably dangerou......
-
Owen v. United States
...building construction superintendent earning $125 per week, for loss of vision in one eye and other injuries. In Deitz v. United States, 228 F.2d 494 (3rd Cir. 1955), the court affirmed an award of $45,573.72 to a 26-year-old seaman for loss of virtually all sight of one In Zahn v. Ford Mot......