Gutierrez v. THE" SS HASTINGS", 19-59.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-59.,19-59. |
| Parties | Federico Marin GUTIERREZ, Libellant, v. THE Steamship "S.S. HASTINGS", her engines, boilers, etc. and Waterman Steamship Corp., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Nachman & Feldstein, Stanley L. Feldstein, San Juan, P. R., for libellant.
Hartzell, Fernandez & Novas, San Juan, P. R., for respondents.
Upon the conclusion of the trial of this suit, the Court stated from the bench that it was convinced, from the evidence adduced, that respondent's liability, both as regards unseaworthiness and negligence, had been proven and that libellant had overcome respondent's exceptive allegation in all its three grounds.
Accordingly the case was submitted exclusively for the purpose of determining the loss of earnings and other damages suffered by the libellant and recoverable from the respondent on account of the accident involved herein. In that respect, the court then directed that the expert medical testimony be transcribed and that once the transcript was delivered to the court and to counsel for the parties, the latter submit briefs in support of their respecting contentions as to earnings and damages.
The transcripts were in due course filed and libellant thereafter filed his memorandum on these two questions.
Respondent did not submit its memorandum until October 18, 1960.
Although the court had definitely directed counsel to limit their memoranda to the questions of loss of earnings and other damages, counsel for respondent saw fit to discuss and argue in its memorandum, not only the above issues but also the issues of respondent's liability based on unseaworthiness and negligence, as well as the issues raised in respondent's exceptive allegations.
I have carefully considered the transcript of the expert medical testimony and counsel's memoranda and I am now fully advised in the premises.
As to the respondent's liability based on unseaworthiness and negligence respondent's memorandum of October 18, 1960 has failed to convince me that the ruling thereon given from the bench at the termination of the trial should in any way be disturbed or modified.
The fact that libellant suffered his injuries while working on the apron does not in any way preclude him from recovering on the basis of the unseaworthiness of the vessel. See Marceau v. Great Lakes Transit Corporation, 2 Cir., 146 F.2d 416, 418. Robillard v. A. L. Burbank & Co., Ltd., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1960, 186 F.Supp. 193.
There is no doubt that under the evidence adduced herein the S. S. Hastings was unseaworthy at the time of the accident in question, that respondent failed to provide libellant with a safe place to work and also that respondent's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and that therefore respondent is liable for the damages suffered by libellant.
As to the exceptive allegations there is nothing in respondent's memorandum which would justify changing my ruling at the termination of the trial.
The libel unquestionably states two good causes of action as to which the court, on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial, has ruled that respondent is liable to libellant on the grounds stated above.
As regards laches and the plea of limitations, the evidence shows that libellant in 1957, long before the one year period invoked by respondent had elapsed, consulted attorney Cole, and signed a contract retaining him as his attorney to bring the suit; that Cole left for New York and did not contact libellant for some time until late in 1958 when libellant contacted attorney Feldstein and asked him to straighten up the situation with Mr. Cole and take his case.
But even if the above were not to be considered as sufficient by itself to meet the defense of laches, still there are other factors that the court must consider in order to give due application to the said equitable doctrine.
As stated by the Supreme Court in Gardner v. Panama R. R. Co., 342 U.S. 29, 72 S.Ct. 12, 13, 96 L.Ed. 31:
"Where no prejudice to the defendant has ensued from the mere passage of time, there should be no bar to relief".
The evidence adduced at the trial herein amply shows that the accident report, the names of witnesses, the records of the medical treatment received by libellant on account of the accident in question, payrolls and other records of the stevedoring contractor, including those relating to the unloading operations of the S. S. Hastings on the voyage on which the accident occurred, were duly preserved and kept since the date of the accident until the day of trial. All these records fully gave respondent all the data it needed for its defense. Indeed respondent itself offered most of those records in evidence.
It must, therefore, be concluded, as I hereby conclude, that no prejudice to the respondent has ensued from the mere passage of time; that libellant's delay in bringing his action is no bar to his request for relief and that respondent's exceptive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp
...District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, and the court found the following facts relevant in the present posture of the case. 193 F.Supp. 894. The cargo of beans was packed in broken and defective bags, some of which were being repaired by coopers aboard the ship during unloading. Be......
-
Green v. Pope & Talbott, Inc.
...unseaworthiness of the ship's cargo or cargo containers; therefore, it entered judgment in favor of Gutierrez. Gutierrez v. The S.S. Hastings, 193 F.Supp. 894 (D.P.R. 1961). On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Gutierrez, 301 F.2d 415......
- Leibas v. Dart