Document Title Page

ing (R. 112). He also stated that this was a common

practice of longshoremen (R. 113).

Finally, Appellant states (Br. 3) that libelant ''exert-

ed a direct upward pull" on the top rail, thus pulling

the hook out of the eye. There is no evidence in the

record supporting such an assertion.


There was conflict in the oral testimony as to wheth-

er Appellant's vessel was unseaworthy and whether libel-

ant was negligent in putting the rail to an improper

use or by choosing an unsafe method of going to talk

to the walking boss. The District Court's findings in

favor of libelant on these issues were based upon sub-

stantial evidence and should not be disturbed by this


The SS ROMULUS was unseaworthy at the time

of the accident because the guard rail which gave way

was not properly secured, and Appellant, as the owner

of the ROMULUS was negligent in failing to see to it

that the guard rail was secure.

The use to which libelant put the guard rail was

usual, proper and prudent, and the injury to libelant

was reasonably forseeable.

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs2992

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2992

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2992#page/n230/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

rail, hook, eye, 2d, route, ca, stanchion, secured, negligent, injury, guard, support, secure, vessel, unsafe

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

guard rail, libel ant, stanchion eye, contributory negligence, ss romulus, midship stanchion, vertical force, unsafe route, seemed risky, seaman knowingly, route br., properly secured, patently dangerous, lateral forces, lateral force

Document Status: UGLY