TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robert K. Benton v. United Towing Co., a Corporation

Robert K. BENTON, Appellant, v. UNITED TOWING CO., a Corporation, Appellee

Benton v. United Towing Co., 224 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1955)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 14, 1955
Docket
No. 14507_1
Judges
Denman, Bone, Orr
Citations
224 F.2d 5581955 A.M.C. 17381955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4836

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Benton, libelant in an admiralty proceeding, appeals from a decree denying him relief for an injury received while he was employed by United Towing Company on its oil barge engaged in the delivery of oil in San Francisco Bay. The libel claimed that Benton’s injury was caused by (a) the unseaworthiness of the oil barge and (b) the negligence of the towing company in failing to maintain its seaworthiness. The court held the barge was seaworthy and that there was no negligence of the towing company.

Benton contends that this court should try this proceeding de novo and this although all the testimony was by witnesses heard by the trial court. Whatever may have been the rule heretofore, the contention that an admiralty appeal requires a trial de novo has been finally disposed of by the Supreme Court’s holding in McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19 , at page 20, 75 S.Ct. 6 , at page 8, stated as follows:

“No greater scope of review is exercised by the appellate tribunals in admiralty cases than they exercise under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

The pertinent portion of Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. is:

“Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.”

We agree with the holding of the district court on the two contentions urged in the appeal and adopt Judge Hamlin’s excellent opinion disposing of them as that of this Court-.

Decree affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1955: 11957: 11958: 21962: 11966: 11967: 11977: 11980: 119552026peak 1958 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19 (1954) 912

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list