Ludvigsen v. Commercial Stevedoring Co., 136
| Decision Date | 03 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 136,Docket 23756.,136 |
| Parties | Lorentz LUDVIGSEN, Libelant-Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL STEVEDORING CO., Inc., and The J. L. Mowinckels Rederi, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Samuel Friedlander, New York City (Abraham M. Fisch and Arthur Hutter, New York City, on the brief), for libelant-appellant.
Albert P. Thill, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Thomas F. Keane, Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for respondent-appellee Commercial Stevedoring Co., Inc.
J. Ward O'Neill, New York City (Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens and David P. H. Watson, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellee The J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This is a libel for personal injuries brought by libelant, a lighter captain, against a stevedoring company (the first named respondent) and the owner of the motor vessel Horda (the second named respondent). On July 19, 1950, libelant brought his lighter, a Lehigh Valley scow, alongside the Horda, then moored at Pier 34, Brooklyn, to discharge his cargo on the vessel. In the course of his operation he had occasion to go onto another scow and thence up a Jacob's ladder (of rope sides and wooden steps) to the Horda's deck. His case was that, when he was nearly at the top, the slack of the ladder, which unknown to him had been drawn up on the deck, was suddenly released, causing him to lose his hold and fall to the deck of the scow, with the resulting injuries for which he was suing. The issue as tried below was as to whether or not there was actually any such slack (left presumably by the stevedore's workmen); and Judge Bruchhausen, upon a most careful analysis of the considerable testimony of the various people present, rejected that tending to show the presence of slack and found that libelant had not sustained his burden of proof. Accordingly he dismissed the libel.
This crucial finding of the trial court, so carefully accommodated to the testimony as presented, must be accepted as being far from "clearly erroneous." McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20. It is of course supported by the lack of any plausible explanation for the slack in the first place or as to how the ladder with the slack could have supported libelant during most of his ascent, only suddenly to give way as he neared the top. The dismissal of the libel must therefore stand.
Libelant objects to the inclusion in the vessel owner's bill of costs of an item of $708.60 for mileage (equal to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calderone v. NAVIERA VACUBA S/A
...does not render a vessel unseaworthy. He relies upon Ludvigsen v. Commercial Stevedoring Co., 131 F.Supp. 337 (E.D. N.Y.1955), aff'd, 228 F.2d 707 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1014, 76 S.Ct. 660, 100 L.Ed. 874 (1956). However, that case was decided on a purely factual issue. The distri......
-
Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Company
...against it. Those cases decided subsequent to the 1949 legislation give it little or no attention. E. g., Ludvigsen v. Commercial Stevedoring Co., Inc., 228 F.2d 707 (2 Cir.) (dictum), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1014, 76 S.Ct. 660, 100 L.Ed. 874 (1956); Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research La......
-
Bank of America v. Loew's International Corporation
...seems the fair meaning and intent of its costs provision. 2 Plaintiffs urge that the Second Circuit case of Ludvigsen v. Commercial Stevedoring Co., 2 Cir., 1956, 228 F.2d 707, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 1014, 76 S.Ct. 660, 100 L.Ed. 874, is controlling here. However, the Ludvigsen case is ......
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC.
... ... of the Act as held in Pacific Intermountain Express Co., 107 N.L.R.B. 837 and that the acts of the Union in ... ...