Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2d 599
The U.S.S. LUZERNE COUNTY was brought to the shipyard for repairs and
overhaul that cost $184,824 and required approximately 63 days. Twice the
ship was drydocked. Most of the work was done while it was moored alongside
a shipyard pier. Power, light, and water were provided by the yard. The contract
included the removal, repair, and reinstallation of the starboard main engine, all
generators, diesel service engines, and bow ramp and doors; the repair of the
port engine, all communication systems, radar navigational equipment, and
radio gear. Access holes were cut in the deck above the generator room to
facilitate removal of this equipment. A hole approximately six feet square was
cut in the tank deck to allow removal from the ship of the main engine's
reduction gear for repairs. Although the officers and crew remained aboard,
none participated in the work contracted to the shipyard.
3
The district court, sitting without a jury, found "That the nature of the entire
overhaul being performed in the shipyard was not such as is normally done by
the regular crew of a vessel." This finding is amply supported by the record and
is binding on us under Fed.R. Civ.P. 52. Since Vessella was not performing the
type of work traditionally done by a ship's crew, the warranty of seaworthiness
did not extend to him.1
Vessella contended that he slipped because the rungs of the ladder were greasy,
but he admitted at the trial that he saw no grease either before or after the
accident. Furthermore, he introduced no other testimony that the ladder from
which he fell was greasy. Significantly, when he reported the accident shortly
after it occurred, he did not mention that he slipped because of grease. Thus, the
evidence did not establish that the sailor who used the ladder before Vessella
fell tracked grease on it. But even if it be assumed that he tracked undetected
grease, this does not show that the efforts of the ship's officers and crew to keep
the vessel clean were inadequate. We agree with the district judge that Vessella
failed to prove that the shipowner was negligent.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes:
1
United N.Y. & N.J.S.H. Pilots' Ass'n v. Halecki, 358 U.S. 613, 79 S.Ct. 517, 3
L.Ed.2d 541 (1959); McQuaid v. United States, 337 F.2d 483 (3rd Cir. 1964).
See generally McCown v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 405 F.2d 596 (4th Cir.
1968), decided today