Carrell

Carrell v. Fred Olsen Line Agency, Ltd.

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2776·213 Cal. App. 2d 601·29 Cal. Rptr. 95
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 6, 1963Civ. No. 20606California1,754 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bray, J.

In an action brought under the provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, plaintiff appeals from a judgment in his favor in the sum of $1,504.92.

Questions Presented

1. Is the finding of contributory negligence supported?

2. Are the damages inadequate?

Record

The rule of comparative negligence obtains in this action. Plaintiff, a longshoreman, was injured by being struck on the head by a falling plank on board defendant’s freighter MS Burrard. The action was tried without a jury. At the conclusion of the trial defendant’s motion to amend its answer to plead contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part was granted. The court found that the crew of the vessel was negligent but that plaintiff was equally at fault. Following the comparative negligence rule of admiralty law (see Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn (1953) 346 U.S. 406 [74 S.C.t 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 ] ; Chelentis v. Luckenbach 8.8. Co. (1918) 247 U.S. 372 [38 S.Ct. 501 , 62 L.Ed. 1171 ]) the court mitigated *603 the damages by one-half, giving plaintiff judgment in the sum of $1,504.92.

1. Contributory Negligence.

August 22, 1956, plaintiff and other longshoremen were assigned to discharge cargo…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.