486 F2d 1370 Tinerella v. Bethlehem Steel Corp

486 F.2d 1370

Phillip Joseph TINERELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 71-2869.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 15, 1973.

Seymour L. Ellison, (argued), Belli, Ashe, Ellison, Choulos & Lieff, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Graydon S. Staring (argued), Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

view counter
1

The judgment in this admiralty injury case is affirmed.

2

As a question of negligence, we cannot find the district court's findings clearly erroneous.

3

As to any strict liability theory, the circumstance that the district court in its view of the evidence could not connect Bethlehem (the repairs contractor) to missing bolts, which absence was a factor in causation, relieves us of the necessity of exploring the limits of such a theory.

4

Plaintiff, a sailor of the United States Navy, obviously had a strong case for unseaworthiness against the government except that his injury was one where his status as a sailor denied him the right to sue. (The navy owned the ship.) The government has its own provisions to compensate those in the service injured in the line of duty.

5

Judgment affirmed.