Maniatis v. The Archipelago, 7804.
| Decision Date | 10 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 7804.,7804. |
| Citation | 1959 AMC 2348,176 F. Supp. 63 |
| Parties | Nicholas MANIATIS, Libellant, v. THE Steamship ARCHIPELAGO, her engines, etc., in rem, and Penedo Cia Naviera, S. A., etc., in personam, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Sidney H. Kelsey, Peter K. Babalas, Norfolk, Va., for libellant.
Seawell, McCoy, Winston & Dalton, John W. Winston, Norfolk, Va., for respondent.
The original opinion of this Court is reported in 159 F.Supp. 245. On appeal the case was at first reversed and remanded for further proceedings with instructions to reaffirm the judgment if this Court found that the accident was caused by deficient equipment amounting to unseaworthiness, but to dismiss the case if the accident was due to the negligence of a fellow member of the crew. Penedo Cia Naviera, S. A. v. Maniatis, 4 Cir., 262 F.2d 284.
When the matter was initially heard in this Court, proctors conceded that the case was not governed by the statutory law of the United States, but by the general maritime law prevailing in Liberia, the vessel flying the flag of that country.
The Court of Appeals rejected the theory that the doctrine of unseaworthiness now encompasses the negligent operation of seaworthy equipment (operating negligence), as well as defects in the structure of the ship and its appliances.
Following the reversal on January 5, 1959, a rehearing was granted on application of Maniatis because the decision in Markakis v. The Liberian Mparmpa Christos, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 161 F.Supp. 487, interpreted the Liberian law as permitting a cause of action grounded upon negligence of a fellow servant. At the argument on rehearing a conflicting decision was called to the attention of the Court of Appeals. Konstantopoulos v. Diamente Cia De Vapores, S. A., D.C.S.D. N.Y., 170 F.Supp. 662, 667. By order dated June 17, 1959, the prior judgment of this Court was vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial with an opportunity being afforded to produce evidence as to the existence and interpretation of Liberian law, as well as further evidence, if desired by either party, as to the cause of the accident.
In this posture of the case, proctors have agreed that the matter be determined on the evidence heretofore submitted, together with the deposition of C. A. Cassell, a former Attorney General of Liberia,1 as to the interpretation of the laws of Liberia.
We do not reach the point of interpreting the Liberian law. It is clear from the prior opinion of this Court that, under the authority of the comment from Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty, p. 320, § 6-39, which was rejected by the Court of Appeals, the trial court was not required to analyze the evidence for the purpose of supporting libellant's right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial