TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gary James v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., and the S. S. Maiden Creek

Gary JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and the S. S. MAIDEN CREEK, Defendant

James v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 456 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1972)
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
February 23, 1972
Docket
No. 71-2877
Judges
Gewin, Ainsworth, Simpson
Citations
456 F.2d 2211972 A.M.C. 6241972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11148

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Gary James (James) was employed as a longshoreman on June 25, 1968, by Ryan Stevedoring Company (Ryan) at Mobile, Alabama. He was ordered to perform longshoreman’s duties aboard the S.S. MAIDEN CREEK, owned by Sea-Land Service, Inc., (Sea-Land), in the deep tanks located in the number three hold. After working for approximately three hours, James became ill and passed out. He was removed from the vessel and transported to a physician’s office and eventually to Mobile *222 General Hospital. James subsequently brought suit against Sea-Land and the S.S. MAIDEN CREEK for personal injuries allegedly suffered as the proximate result of carbon monoxide poisoning in the deep tank, number three hold, of the S.S. MAIDEN CREEK, on June 25, 1968. After a non-jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of James in the amount of $65,000.00 from which Sea-Land has appealed. We affirm.

The district court’s findings of fact may be capsulated as follows: Ryan had contracted with Sea-Land to load certain cargo on pallets into the number three hold of the S.S. MAIDEN CREEK with particular reference to the deep tanks in that hold. James and his fellow workers began work at approximately 8:30 A.M. in the port deep tank. The pallets loaded with paper cargo were being placed in position by a gasoline-powered forklift machine, which began its operations in the deep tank between 8:30 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and continued until approximately 11:30 A.M., when James became ill. Ventilation into the port deep tank in number three hold was not built-in, so a portable electric blower was provided for that purpose and placed on the main deck, with a plastic hose lowered across the hatch coaming and dropped into the deep tank. Because the blower was inadequate for its intended purpose and because the hose became crimped as it crossed the hatch coaming, inadequate ventilation was provided for the port deep tank. At about 10:30 A.M. a carbon monoxide concentration test was made in the port deep tank which revealed a concentration of 200 parts per million parts of air. This reading exceeded the limit fixed by the United States Department of Labor’s Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring (Section 1504.93, requiring the removal of employees from the compartment involved when the carbon monoxide level exceeds 100 parts per million). James and his fellow workers were not removed at 10:30 A.M. but continued to work with the forklift until about 11:30 A.M., when James became ill. His illness was proximately caused by his exposure to excessive amounts of carbon monoxide or other noxious gases emitted by the forklift. As a direct result of the carbon monoxide intoxication suffered on June 25, 1968, James’ bronchitis and reduction in breathing capacity was either caused or aggravated. Further, that incident caused James to suffer a totally disabling anxiety neurosis. At the time of the accident, James was 52 years of age and earned average wages in excess of $5,500.00 per year. The district court concluded that the vessel S.S. MAIDEN CREEK was unseaworthy because of the accumulation of carbon monoxide or other noxious gases in the port deep tank of hold number 3 and that James was entitled to recover the sum of $65,000.00 as damages for injuries suffered because of the vessel’s unseaworthiness.

Sea-Land first contends that there was no competent or substantial evidence introduced at trial to establish that James was totally or permanently disabled and to establish that the conditions described by James’ physician were caused by exposure to excessive levels of carbon monoxide. Our examination of the record on appeal convinces us that the district judge’s findings of fact in this regard are not “clearly erroneous”. McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19 , 75 S.Ct. 6 , 99 L.Ed. 20 , Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We would not be justified in disturbing them on appeal.

Sea-Land next argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 1971, 400 U.S. 494 , 91 S.Ct. 514 , 27 L.Ed.2d 562 , dealing with the doctrine of operational negligence causing instant unseaworthiness, dictates reversal of the district court’s judgment in this case. For the reasons outlined in our opinion in a case involving injury from similar causation, Carey v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Company, Inc. v. Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., 5 Cir. 1972, 455 F.2d 1192 , we hold that the Usner ruling does not apply to the unseaworthy condition involved here.

*223 Finally, Sea-Land asserts that the damages awarded by the district court were excessive. The district court found James to have been permanently and totally disabled by the accident of June 25, 1968. In view of the nature of James' injuries, the award was not excessive.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1972: 21976: 22001: 119722026peak 1972 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc.529 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1976)
  2. Juanita C. Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc. v529 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1976)
  3. Carey v. Lykes Bros. Steamship455 F.2d 1192 (5th Cir. 1972)
  4. Hurklee Carey v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Company, Inc. -Cross v. Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc. -Cross455 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1972)
  5. Faulkner v. Cain133 F. Supp. 2d 449 (E.D. La. 2001)

Most recent

  1. Faulkner v. Cain133 F. Supp. 2d 449 (E.D. La. 2001)
  2. Juanita C. Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc. v529 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1976)
  3. Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc.529 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1976)
  4. Hurklee Carey v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Company, Inc. -Cross v. Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc. -Cross455 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1972)
  5. Carey v. Lykes Bros. Steamship455 F.2d 1192 (5th Cir. 1972)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19 (1954) 912
Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494 (1971) 253
Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494 (1971) 245
Hurklee Carey v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc. -Cross v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc. -Cross, 455 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1972) 6

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