TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ottilie Ruth Sara Katz, Also Known as Mrs. Nathan Katz, and v. Cie Generale Transatlantique, a Corporation, Owner, and

Ottilie Ruth Sara KATZ, Also Known as Mrs. Nathan Katz, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. CIE GENERALÉ TRANSATLANTIQUE, a Corporation, Owner, Appellee and Cross-Appellant

Ottilie Ruth Sara Katz, Also Known as Mrs. Nathan Katz, and v. Cie Generale Transatlantique, a Corp., Owner, and, 271 F.2d 590 (4th Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 26, 1959
Docket
No. 7918_1
Judges
Sobeloff, Boreman, Butler
Citations
271 F.2d 5901960 A.M.C. 521959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3222

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

While a passenger on the steamship Liberte on July 4, 1956, Ottilie Ruth Sara Katz, the appellant, injured her foot in striking it against a door sill said to have been negligently constructed and inadequately lighted. Some months later, on January 8, 1957, she fell in Richmond, Virginia, and fractured her wrist, as a result of which she suffered a disability which she claims has destroyed or impaired her earning power as a beautician. She attributes the second fall and injury to unsteadiness caused by the first injury, and seeks to hold the ship liable for both.

Her action was brought in admiralty, and the Judge, who sat without a jury, accepted her version of the accident aboard ship and awarded her $3000.00 damages for the foot injury. He held, however, that she had failed to carry the burden resting upon her to prove that the second injury, in Richmond, was caused by the earlier injury to the foot while on the Liberte, and he refused to award damages against the ship for the *591 second fall, which resulted in injury to her wrist. Mrs. Katz appealed and the ship cross-appealed.

In this court, counsel for the respective parties have argued earnestly and at length, but we perceive in the case nothing more than questions of fact as to which it was the Judge’s function to resolve the conflicting testimony. We cannot say that the Judge’s findings are clearly erroneous.

The judgment will be Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1986: 11988: 11989: 11991: 11992: 119862026peak 1986 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.633 F. Supp. 40 (S.D. Fla. 1986)
  2. Regina M. Muratore v. M/s Scotia Prince, Etc., Prince of Fundy Cruises, Ltd.845 F.2d 347 (1st Cir. 1988)
  3. Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc.593 So. 2d 634 (La. 1992)
  4. Duhon v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.554 So. 2d 1270 (La. Ct. App. 1989)
  5. Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc.576 So. 2d 1183 (La. Ct. App. 1991)

Most recent

  1. Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc.593 So. 2d 634 (La. 1992)
  2. Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc.576 So. 2d 1183 (La. Ct. App. 1991)
  3. Duhon v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.554 So. 2d 1270 (La. Ct. App. 1989)
  4. Regina M. Muratore v. M/s Scotia Prince, Etc., Prince of Fundy Cruises, Ltd.845 F.2d 347 (1st Cir. 1988)
  5. Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.633 F. Supp. 40 (S.D. Fla. 1986)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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