Dillon v. MS Oriental Inventor
| Decision Date | 18 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 28281.,28281. |
| Citation | 426 F.2d 977 |
| Parties | Ison H. DILLON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M. S. ORIENTAL INVENTOR et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. NEW ORLEANS STEVEDORING COMPANY, Intervenor-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Stuart A. McClendon, McClendon & McClendon, Metairie, La., for defendants-appellants.
Clifton S. Carl, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
As the result of a suit charging unseaworthiness, Ison H. Dillon was awarded judgment against the M. S. ORIENTAL INVENTOR, and its owner, for personal injuries allegedly sustained while working aboard the ship as a longshoreman. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Dillon and his fellow longshoreman, Donald Harrison Lewis, were the witnesses to the injury. Their credibility is heavily attacked on appeal. We cannot sustain the attack. Except as to testimony which is inherently incredible, the Courts of Appeal do not substitute their judgment for that of the trial court or jury in the exercise of credibility choices, United States v. Springfield, 5 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 798; Chaney v. City of Galveston, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 774, 776. The findings of fact by trial court or jury verdict may not be set aside as clearly erroneous unless we are left with an abiding conviction that a mistake has been made, Rule 52 (a) Fed.R.Civ.P., Chaney v. City of Galveston, supra.
In the absence of clear error, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed below, Fireman's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey v. Robbins Coal Company, 5 Cir., 1961, 288 F.2d 349, cert. denied 368 U.S. 875, 82 S.Ct. 122, 7 L.Ed.2d 77.
Once the matter of clear error is eliminated the only remaining question is whether the finding or verdict is supported by substantial evidence, Boeing v. Shipman, 5 Cir., en banc, 1969, 411 F.2d 365.
On April 18, 1967, Dillon was the member of a gang employed in stowing bales of pulp paper in a lower 'tween deck of the ship. By 4:30 p. m., the men were working in a very restricted space, stowing the bales so as to "block out" fill in the remaining area. The situation was such that only two men could work together, on their knees. They would "head up" one of the heavy bales of paper, after which they would roll it over the stow and into the empty space.
Dillon's lifting partner was Donald Harrison Lewis, who was 6 feet, 5 inches tall, and weighed 250 pounds. About 11 o'clock that morning Lewis had hurt his knee, had reported it to his foreman, had obtained authorization for medical assistance, but continued to work. By 4:30 p. m. the knee had swollen to about double its normal size. Lewis continued to work because he "wanted to make the day". It was about 4:30 that Dillon received his injuries. While Dillon and Lewis were trying to head a bale, Lewis' damaged knee "gave way". This caused him abruptly to shift his position, with the result that the whole load unexpectedly fell upon Dillon, from which he suffered a torn biceps tendon. It was for this injury, on the grounds of unseaworthiness, that Dillon recovered judgment.
The familiar maritime warranty of seaworthiness is that the ship and its appurtenances are reasonably fit for carrying the cargo. Unseaworthiness is a species of liability without fault and it extends to stevedores. Seas Shipping Company v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099. The doctrine is a growing concept, constantly undergoing redefinition as the risks of those protected are enlarged by changing technology and ship board technique.
In June T., Inc. v. King, 5 Cir., 1961, 290 F.2d 404, 407, the ship was being operated by a two man crew, whereas the evidence established that a three man crew was both customary and necessary. The Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company
...reviewed here do not involve conclusions based on the credibility of witnesses giving conflicting testimony. Dillon v. M. S. Oriental Inventor, 426 F.2d 977 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 903, 91 S. Ct. 140, 27 L.Ed.2d 140 (1970). Rather at issue is the weight of evidence supporting the......
-
94-1582 La.App. 3 Cir. 9/6/95, Milstead v. Diamond M Offshore, Inc.
...duties; and to provide adequate and proper equipment. Ceja v. Mike Hooks, Inc., 690 F.2d 1191 (5th Cir.1982); Dillon v. M.S. Oriental Inventor, 426 F.2d 977 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 903, 91 S.Ct. 140, 27 L.Ed.2d 140 (1970); Courville v. Cardinal Wireline Specialists, Inc., 775......
-
Curry v. United States
...States, 303 F.Supp. 1282, 1304 (E.D.N.C.1969), aff'd 432 F. 2d 1357 (4th Cir. 1970). See also Waldron, supra; Dillon v. M. S. Oriental Inventor, 426 F.2d 977, 979 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 903, 91 S.Ct. 140, 27 L.Ed.2d 140 (1970)1American President Lines, Ltd., supra, 345 F.2d at......
-
Lubrano v. Royal Netherlands S.S. Co.
...(Oct. 27, 1972).2 A concept stretched by the courts to far-fetched lengths during ensuing years. See, e. g., Dillon v. M. S. Oriental Inventor, 426 F.2d 977 (5th Cir. 1970) (fellow longshoreman's knee gave way, causing a bale to fall upon plaintiff); Bryant v. Partenreederei-Ernest Russ, 33......