TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

M/v Ena K and Blue Ribbon Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Donald A

M/V ENA K and Blue Ribbon Shipping Co., Ltd., Appellants, v. Donald A. MONPLAISIR, Appellee; Donald A. MONPLAISIR, Appellant, v. M/V ENA K and Blue Ribbon Shipping Co., Ltd., Appellees

M/v Ena K & Blue Ribbon Shipping Co. v. Donald A, 391 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 4, 1968
Docket
No. 24195_1
Judges
Brown, Coleman, Per Curiam, Simpson
Citations
391 F.2d 2771968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7875

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Monplaisir owned the TUNA III, an ex-Navy L.C.M., 51 feet long, with watertight compartments but having a 19" x 31" hatch on deck over the engine room. He hired Respondent, owner of the ENA K to tow TUNA III to the West Indies. The engine room hatch was sealed before the tow left Miami.

Enroute, TUNA III sank at sea, about an hour after one of ENA K’s crew opened this hatch to get gasoline from the engine room. Immediately three large waves capped over the tow, she listed to starboard, rolled on her side and sank stern first.

Based on credible testimony, expert and otherwise, the trial court made find *278 ings that the TUNA III was seaworthy and that she sank as a result of sea water flooding the engine room because of negligence in improperly securing the hatch. Respondents Blue Ribbon and ENA K were held liable for the damages caused by the loss of TUNA III. These the court assessed at $11,500, although Monplaisir claimed $21,190 as the amount necessary to make him whole.

Respondents appealed; Monplaisir cross-appealed, claiming that the damages awarded were inadequate. We cannot conclude that either the findings as to liability or damages were clearly erroneous. (Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P.).

The other questions raised on appeal and cross-appeal have been examined and found to be without merit. They do not warrant discussion.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, both on the original appeal and on the cross-appeal.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1970: 219702026peak 1970 · 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 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