430 F.2d 644 - Sines v. United States — 430 F.2d 644

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2008

9 federal appellate ·

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.

¶1Eugene L. Gartland (argued), Jennings, Gartland & Tilly, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

¶2Robert McGrouther, Jr. (argued), Graydon S. Staring, of Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., John P. Meadowns, West Coast Office Admr. & Shipping, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

¶3Before KILKENNY and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER,* District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6This is an appeal from a judgment in a suit in admiralty brought against the government by appellant, a merchant seaman injured while employed on a government vessel.

¶7The district court found that the government’s negligence was a proximate cause of appellant’s injury, and that appellant suffered damages in the sum of $74,264. The court further found that appellant’s contributory negligence was a proximate cause of his injury and reduced the award by fifty per-cent. Judgment was entered in favor of appellant in the sum of $37,132.

¶8 Appellant now alleges that the court erred in finding that he was negligent. This is a factual finding which may be disturbed on appeal only if clear*645ly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Rederi A/B Soya v. SS Grand Grace, 369 F.2d 159, 162-163 (9th Cir. 1966). We hold that the trial court’s finding on the record including the depositions was not clearly erroneous.

¶9 The court’s finding that appellant had a reduced work life expectancy was likewise supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Nor did the court err in failing to prepare special findings on damages. The court substantially adopted the proposed findings of fact submitted to it by appellant. Appellant made no motion for a more detailed computation of damages. Although the findings on damages were somewhat vague, there is no doubt as to the propriety of the total amount awarded. See Dwyer v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 276 F.2d 653, 654 (2d Cir. 1960).

¶10The judgment is affirmed.