Clarence F. Tinsley Marion Tinsley v. Sea-Land Corporation, a Corporation

979 F.2d 856 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Clarence F. TINSLEY; Marion Tinsley, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SEA-LAND CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-35762. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 1992. Decided Nov. 20, 1992. Before JAMES R. BROWNING, DAVID R. THOMPSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Sea-Land timely appeals the district court's determination of comparative negligence. We affirm for the reasons that follow. Sea-Land also appeals the district court's award of postjudgment interest from the date of the original judgment. We affirm this award in a separate published opinion. I. 3 Sea-Land argues that the district court, contrary to our decision in the first appeal, improperly inferred Sea-Land was aware of the danger of reading third-tier temperature dials without a catwalk. While the district court judge did suggest he believed Sea-Land knew of the danger (ER 69), he…