Jure v. United Fruit Co.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4370.,4370. |
| Citation | 6 F.2d 6 |
| Parties | JURE v. UNITED FRUIT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
M. A. Grace, of New Orleans, La. (John D. Grace, M. A. Grace, and Edwin H. Grace, all of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Charles E. Dunbar, Jr., of New Orleans, La. (Walker B. Spencer, Philip S. Gidiere, Esmond Phelps, and Charles E. Dunbar, Jr., all of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and BARRETT, District Judge.
This was an action by the plaintiff in error to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while he was at work as a longshoreman on board the steamship City of Canton, while that vessel was lying afloat in the Mississippi river and moored to a dock at Chalmette Slips, a short distance below New Orleans. The injury was attributed to the negligent handling of the steamship Atenas, which was operated by the defendant, in that the Atenas, while proceeding upstream at a high and dangerous rate of speed and passing close to the City of Canton, by the motion so created caused the last-named vessel to break away from its moorings, with the result that a piece of the mooring chock of that vessel was torn off and struck plaintiff.
As to the speed of the Atenas, and as to how far out in the river from the City of Canton it was when it passed that vessel, the evidence was conflicting. A phase of the evidence tended to prove that the Atenas was within 100 feet of the City of Canton when it passed that vessel, and that it was moving at such speed as to cause a vessel situated as the City of Canton was to be moved violently. A ground of defense set up was that at and prior to the time of the injury the Atenas was in charge of a pilot, who was required by the compulsory pilotage law of Louisiana to be accepted by that vessel, and that the defendant was not liable for the negligence of that pilot, if there was such negligence. Evidence showed that, before and while the Atenas was passing the City of Canton early in the afternoon, the master of the former was on the bridge of the vessel with the pilot.
The testimony of the master included the following: The pilot, in answer to questions as to his relations with the officers of a ship he is piloting, stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, SA
...Libera Triestina, S.A., 32 F.2d 209 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 280 U.S. 574, 50 S.Ct. 30, 74 L.Ed. 626 (1929); Jure v. United Fruit Co., 6 F.2d 6 (5th Cir. 1925); Barbey Packing Corp. v. The S.S. Stavros, 169 F.Supp. 897, 901 (D. Ore.1959); The Emma T. Grimes, 2 F. Supp. 319 15 Cf. National D......
-
Sandoval v. Mitsui Sempaku KK Tokyo
...sub nom. Nebel Towing Company, Inc. v. Olympic Towing Corporation, 397 U.S. 989, 90 S.Ct. 1120, 25 L.Ed.2d 396 (1970); Jure v. United Fruit Co., 5 Cir., 1925, 6 F.2d 6, 7; J. Griffin, The American Law of Collision § 243 (1949); G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 429-430 4 See Ryan ......
-
Crowley American Transport, Inc. v. Double Eagle Marine, Inc., CA 00-0058-C.
...Kingfisher Shipping Co., Ltd. v. M/V Klarendon, 651 F.Supp. 204, 207 (S.D.Tx.1986) (citations omitted); see also Jure v. United Fruit Co., 6 F.2d 6, 6-7 (5th Cir.1925) ("The authority of the master of a vessel is not in complete abeyance while a pilot, who is required by law to be accepted,......
-
Navegacion Castro Riva v. The MS Nordholm
...cannot be abandoned to the pilot. The responsibility of the crew persists. The China, 7 Wall. 53, 74 U.S. 53, 19 L.Ed. 67; Jure v. United Fruit Co., 5 Cir., 6 F.2d 6. Part of the crew's responsibility consisted in letting go the starboard anchor to stop the vessel or break her sheer. This w......