Smith v. Texas Company, No. 37
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | CLARK, , and MEDINA and HARLAN, Circuit |
| Citation | 219 F.2d 74 |
| Docket Number | No. 37,Docket 23112. |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1955 |
| Parties | Alto B. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The TEXAS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
219 F.2d 74 (1955)
Alto B. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
The TEXAS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 37, Docket 23112.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued December 10, 1954.
Decided February 2, 1955.
William A. Blank, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff-appellee.
Tompkins, Boal & Tompkins, New York City (Arthur M. Boal, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and HARLAN, Circuit Judges.
MEDINA, Circuit Judge.
This wholly unnecessary appeal is due to the circumstance that the trial judge followed the all-too-prevalent practice of giving instructions consisting of an aggregate of legal platitudes, which most of the jurors had probably heard repeated on numerous other occasions, without any delineation whatever of the factual issues in the case.
Plaintiff was an ordinary seaman aboard the Alabama, an oil tanker owned by defendant; and he was injured at Port Texaco, Texas, on December 4, 1950 when his leg was caught in a chock, through which an 8-inch hawser was being handled during the operation of casting off the eye of the hawser from a barge alongside. The accident happened at 6 a. m., while it was still dark, although the witnesses seem to have been able to observe what they were about and there is little dispute as to the basic facts.
The barge had been brought by tug to the port side of the Alabama about amidships, where she was moored by three lines, one astern, one from the starboard side of the barge to the port side of the Alabama, and one from bow to bow. When the loading of the oil was concluded, the stern and side lines were taken in, leaving the burden on the bow line, as both vessels headed into the current. Customarily, according to the testimony, the tug was made fast to the bow of the barge and the bow line was cast off by a slackening of the hawser at the twin or double bitt aboard the Alabama, and then, as the tug nudged her way into the current, the men aboard the barge disengaged the eye of the hawser from the hook bitt on the barge and the hawser was taken in on the Alabama. But on this occasion, due perhaps to the absence of the mate who was eating his breakfast instead of supervising the operation of casting off, as he usually did, the tug pulled the barge astern, with rather than against the current. Accordingly, when the men at the bitts took the turns off the bitts and slacked off, and plaintiff, stationed at the chock, was guiding the
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. McKee, 138
...to the evidence, and thus was of the noninformative character we have had occasion to criticize, as in Smith v. Texas Co., 2 Cir., 219 F.2d 74. But no objection was taken on this ground, and the evidence was neither so equivocal nor so complicated as to warrant reversal on our own initiativ......
-
Lanni v. Wyer, 113
...of his conduct on summation. This is not the first case in which complaint has been made of his summation. See Smith v. Texas Co., 2 Cir., 219 F.2d 74. --------Notes: 1 Folio 1865. "* * * Well, nobody was taking care of him. They were hiring for this distorted, damaged brain, and whatever c......
-
United States v. Alsup, 15252.
...is language in the opinion from which it might be concluded that the Supreme Court exempted union officials from the coverage of the Act, 219 F.2d 74 whatever might be their conduct. However, the remarks were made in connection with excerpts from Congressional Reports, and it should be note......