Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

364 F.2d 908

Docket No. 20029.

Raphael J. Chervy and Dorothy E. Chervy v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, Ltd., and City of Longbeach, California, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, Ltd. v. Raphael J. Chervy and Dorothy E. Chervy

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • Raphael J. CHERVY and Dorothy E. Chervyv.PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, Ltd., and City of Long Beach, California
  • PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, Ltdv.Raphael J. CHERVY and Dorothy E. Chervy

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1966-08-15

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1966-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2000

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1019661970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Musick, Peeler & Garret, Michael W. Conlon, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.

Graham, James & Rolph, Reed M. Williams, Don A. Proudfoot, Jr., Long Beach, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

We are of the opinion that the court's finding, reading as follows:

¶2

"That respondent, PENINSULAR, was negligent in that the last warning broadcast failed to specifically warn that the preparations to land the gangway would commence prior to midnight, which preparations would make it dangerous for visitors to delay their disembarkation, by reason whereof visitors could have concluded that the gangway would be in the same condition immediately prior to midnight as it had been earlier."

¶3

is clearly erroneous. As is stated elsewhere in the findings, the steamship company, at 11 o'clock, began broadcasting warnings over the public address system that the vessel would depart at midnight, and advising visitors to disembark. Such warnings do not purport to describe the conditions under which the visitors will disembark and we think that there is no duty on the steamship company to give such advice as a part of such a warning.

¶4

The court found that the steamship company was not otherwise negligent and we are of the opinion that that finding was not clearly erroneous. It follows that the judgment in favor of the steamship company must be affirmed, since it was not negligent. It is unnecessary that we consider the validity of the waiver signed by Chervy on which the trial court relied in giving judgment for the steamship company, or the other questions presented in the briefs.

¶5

Affirmed.

/364/f2d/908 · .json · Public domain