Metropolitan Stevedore Company, a Corporation v. Dampskisaktieselskabet International, a Corporation

We are satisfied in this matter that the exhaustive opinion of the trial judge, supported by the subsequent majority opinion in Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 1959, 358 U.S. 423 , 79 S.Ct. 445 , 3 L.Ed.2d 413 , correctly decides the issues involved herein.

We therefore refer to and adopt the recited facts and the conclusions of that court. Hugev v. Dampskisaktieselskabet International, D.C.S.D.Cal.1959, 170 F.Supp. 601 .

Appellant first differs with the trial court’s conclusions by urging that a more extensive duty is owed to the stevedoring company by the ship than that found due by the trial court. The cases cited to support such a theory, however, are primarily cases dealing with active versus passive negligence determined prior to the Supreme Court cases establishing the contract theory of liability, rather than one arising in tort. Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, supra; Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co., 1958, 355 U.S. 563 , 78 S.Ct. 438 , 2 L.Ed.2d 491 ; Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 1956, 350 U.S. 124 , 76 S.Ct. 232 , 100 L.Ed. 133 . Further, the policy considerations discussed by the court below seem valid— (a) the…