Berryhill

Berryhill v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc.

Good Law
138 F. Supp. 859·1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2269
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 12, 1955No. 34204California271 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Goodman, J.

The motion of defendant Pacific Far East Line, Inc. for judgment in its favor on the pleadings was submitted, upon the pleadings and plaintiff’s responses to defendant’s interrogatories. No factual issue needs resolution in order to determine whether the allegations of the first amended complaint entitle plaintiff to relief.

The amended complaint seeks recovery for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff solely on the basis of the alleged unseaworthiness of defendant’s vessel. At the time plaintiff was injured, the vessel was in dry dock undergoing repairs to make it seaworthy. Plaintiff, a shoreside machinist, was sent aboard the dry-docked vessel by his employer, a shipbuilding and repair firm, engaged by defendant to make the repairs. While he was assisting in making the repairs, he was injured by the explosion of a grinding wheel being used on a grinder supplied by his employer.

In my opinion, Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 85 , 66 S.Ct. 872 , 90 L.Ed. 1099 , Pope and Talbot v. Hawn, 1953, 346 U.S. 406 , 74 S.Ct. 202 , 98 L.Ed., 143 , and the other cases cited by plaintiff as extending the doctrine of shipowners’ liability for unseaworthiness to others than…

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.