Berryhill v. Pacific Far East Line, 34204.
| Decision Date | 12 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 34204.,34204. |
| Citation | 138 F. Supp. 859 |
| Parties | William BERRYHILL, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC FAR EAST LINE, Inc., a corporation, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Jay A. Darwin, Charles H. Warren, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.
Jay T. Cooper, Door, Cooper & Hays, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.
The motion of defendant Pacific Far East Line, Inc. for judgment in its favor on the pleadings was submitted, upon the pleadings and plaintiff's responses to defendant's interrogatories. No factual issue needs resolution in order to determine whether the allegations of the first amended complaint entitle plaintiff to relief.
The amended complaint seeks recovery for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff solely on the basis of the alleged unseaworthiness of defendant's vessel. At the time plaintiff was injured, the vessel was in dry dock undergoing repairs to make it seaworthy. Plaintiff, a shoreside machinist, was sent aboard the dry-docked vessel by his employer, a shipbuilding and repair firm, engaged by defendant to make the repairs. While he was assisting in making the repairs, he was injured by the explosion of a grinding wheel being used on a grinder supplied by his employer.
In my opinion, Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halecki v. United New York & New Jersey SHP Ass'n
...1400, 1 L.Ed.2d 1537 refused relief to a workman who was engaged in "major repairs," as these were described in the District Court (138 F.Supp. 859). In the appeal in Berge v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc., D.C., 148 F.Supp. 608, decided herewith, we shall state the reasons that impel us to ......
- United States v. Zuetell