Buch v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 153,Docket 23281.,153 |
| Citation | 220 F.2d 165 |
| Parties | Carl BUCH, Libelant-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Jacob Rassner, New York City (Harry Eisenberg, New York City, on the brief), for libelant-appellee.
Gray Williams, New York City (J. Edward Lumbard, Jr., U. S. Atty. for the Southern Dist. of N. Y., and Tompkins, Boal & Tompkins, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellant.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, HINCKS, Circuit Judge, and SMITH, District Judge.
The United States of America appeals as respondent from a decision holding it liable for injuries sustained by the libelant, Carl Buch, while leaving the S. S. Earl A. Bloomquist, one of its vessels, on which he was employed as an ordinary seaman. The district court had found both unseaworthiness and negligence on its part in its failure to provide a safe place of egress. Buch was awarded $51,600 damages, together with an additional award of $5,840 for maintenance and cure, or a total decree below of $57,440, plus costs and interest. D.C.S.D.N.Y., 122 F.Supp. 25.
The basis for substantive liability is fully and persuasively set forth in Judge Weinfeld's opinion, and we need state only the highlights here. The accident occurred at dusk of a rainy day, November 23, 1951, while the S. S. Earl A. Bloomquist was unloading coal to barges in the harbor at Rotterdam, Holland. Buch slipped while descending from the ship by means of a Jacob's ladder which did not quite reach the deck of the barge Comptoir 4 on which he was trying to get a foothold. Buch had been granted shore leave, and the barge was the only means of egress then available to him. The narrow deck and the hatch coaming of the barge were slippery from the rain and from the coal dust; and Buch fell into the open hatch, a distance of some twenty feet. The district court's findings of fact are, as usual, a resolution of conflicting evidence, a good part of which was documentary. The deposition of Buch's fellow-seaman Cook supported the libelant's oral testimony on the crucial question of the inadequacy of the Jacob's ladder. Hence respondent's strenuous effort for a trial de novo on the facts underlying its liability must fail, since the trial court's conclusions were far from clearly erroneous. F.R. C.P., rule 52(a), and cases cited in Note to this rule, in Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. Grace Lines, Inc.
...States, 1956 A.M.C. 882, 890--891 (E.D.Pa.1956); Buch v. United States, 122 F.Supp. 25, 26 (S.D.N.Y.1954), rev'd on other grounds 220 F.2d 165 (2nd Cir. 1955).) In Novick v. United States, 324 F.Supp. 1138 (E.D.Pa.1971), defendant shipowner arranged with a third party to provide a launch to......
-
Mesle v. Kea Steamship Corporation
...475, 66 L.Ed. 927; Halecki v. United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilot's Ass'n, 2 Cir., 1958, 251 F.2d 708; Buch v. United States, 2 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 165; Bentley v. Albatross S.S. Co., 3 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 270; Hawn v. Pope & Talbot, 3 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 800 (where the facts......
-
Stein v. Cnty. of Nassau, 17-CV-6055(SJF)(ARL)
..., 923 F.2d at 26 ; see, e.g. Diebold v. Moore McCormack Bulk Transp. Lines, Inc. , 805 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1986) ; Buch v. United States , 220 F.2d 165, 166 (2d Cir. 1955). Plaintiff has not demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his unseaworthiness claim under gene......
-
Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Devlin, 45
...torts to which the federal maritime law fully applies. The Admiral Peoples, 295 U.S. 649, 55 S.Ct. 885, 79 L.Ed. 1633; Buch v. United States, 2 Cir., 220 F.2d 165; Standard Oil Co. v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co., 2 Cir., 32 F.2d 182; Radoslovich v. Navigazione Libera Triestina, S. A., 2 Ci......