William Morrell and Evaristo Valle v. United States of America, and Triple 'A' MacHine Shop, Inc.,appellee-Impleaded

The court below (Morrell v. United States, N.D.Cal.1960, 193 F.Supp. 705 ), following Lawlor v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 2 Cir., 1960, 275 F.2d 599 , cert. denied 363 U.S. 844 , 80 S.Ct. 1614 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1728 , and other cases cited in its opinion, ruled that libellants, as shore-side repairmen, were entitled to a warranty of seaworthiness. We need not, and do not, reach that point. This because the court below held the United States was not liable on the theory of unseaworthiness, nor under the theory of negligence. We hold there were sufficient facts to justify each of those holdings. And see the almost identical facts in Manhat v. United States, 2 Cir. 1955, 220 F.2d 143 , where a similar ruling was made.

Admitting that a finding of seaworthiness is ordinarily a question of fact (Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 1944, 321 U.S. 96 , 64 S.Ct. 455 , 88 L.Ed. 561 ), which this court cannot disturb except in case of clear error, appellants urge two errors of law: (1) that it is not enough for a shipowner to make available all devices required to make the vessel seaworthy, but has the further duty to see that shoreside repairmen do not disregard their use, or fail to make use of them;…