Catherine Poignant, Libellant-Appellant v. United States

parties.11 The record consent of the consent. does not

here disclose with

The cause remanded instruc- modify decree accordance tions opinion. expressed in views POIGNANT, Libellant-

Catherine Appellant, America,

UNITED STATES Respondent-Appellee.

No. Docket Appeals

United States Court

Second Circuit. 18, 1955.

Argued April July

Decided Andrews,

11. Simms v. 118 F.2d 803. got passageway. skin in the trial The gar- did court find that the had no bage disposal practice was chutes: the pull

at the conclusion of each meal large garbage galley of cans from the City passageway (Ja- question the over the Eisenberg, Harry York New ship’s dumping As Harvey counsel, rail for overboard. Rassner, Gold- of cob garbage passage- brief), proctor of amount City, on stein, New York way, findings the no further below went libellant-appellant. for “ * * * it than the statement Atty., Lumbard, S.U. Edward J. garbage.” was not find- littered with The City, Y., York N. New Dist. Southern ings apple did the not indicate whether Kirlin, respondent-appellee, proctor for dropped skin had the been out of one of City, Keating, York Campbell New garbage cans had whether Sims and Vernon Connor Walter X. dropped by passenger or seaman. City, Jones, counsel. of York New The trial court found the defend CLARK, FRANK Before constructive, notice, had ant actual or Judges. HINCKS, Circuit presence apple skin in passageway lapse in and held this Judge. HINCKS, Circuit proof of fatal her libellant’s was cause negligence. finding brought was to action for action The Libellant injuries consistent with case. sustained the evidence personal recover rightly think rul We that the trial court employed on board stewardess as a while libellant was not entitled under vessel, Marine ed S. the S. defendant’s ground Jones Act to recover on two causes contained Her libel Flasher. negligence. recovery of v. Pacific-Atlan on Daniels was for of the first action: F.Supp. D.C.E.D.N.Y., tic S. S. ground the Jones under of Corp., Adamowski v. Gulf Oil and on Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § States, Guerrini v. United unseaworthiness; ground the second of 352; Boyce Seas The trial and cure. for maintenance . Shipping Co., Cir., 152 F.2d 658 sitting admiralty court, without of action jury, first cause dismissed the held, The trial court also ac- without gave under libellant relief companying discussion, respond- appeal of action. No cause second could ent held to have breached holding. sole The from this latter taken warranty of its seaworthiness. confronting question us is whether general Under maritime action first cause of dismissal injured seaman, proves an an law once he right. unseaworthy injury caused an condi Septem- Flasher, on Marine The S. S. neg tion, proof recover of without operated owned and ber ligence part of owner. the vessel’s docked United Shipping Sieracki, In Seas Co. purpose Germany, Bremerhaven, for the 85, 94, U.S. discharging passengers. 1:20 At about of Court, referring date, slipped above libellant a. on the m. unseaworthiness, the doctrine stated: passageways locat- in one and fell liability essentially species “It dining room. the vessel’s ed near analogous fault, without other consequent undisputed her fall and instances in our Derived known law. presence injuries was caused shaped hazards from and to meet garbage piece skin, or some apple performing imposes, the service apple skin, like an looked liability by concep is neither limited passageway. floor negligence nor contractual tions * * * findings It is a form of ab do not character. of fact made below owing range apple duty all within the or how the solute precisely state when voyage policy.” also in likelihood See all arose humanitarian of its after Osceola, Does commenced. the doctrine ap- liability Mahnich v. Southern unseaworthiness ply in such Co., eases? inquiry unseaworthi- 561. Since the supra, case, In this the Dixon of the cases not directed to issue ness is upon unnecessary court found it to rule fault, prior it follows that the owner’s Here, point. however, that the situ fact constructive, notice, un- actual or question ation is such that the must seaworthy essential to condition not answer, think, answered and de the we doctrine. of action on that cause pends applicability concept of control. Dixon it said law further the case was That such is the “Moreover, F.2d apparent [219 the from the decision of the Su 15]: port preme is at Pet vessel her home owner in Alaska S. S. Co. v. the opportunities terson, always, 98 or to the 74 —not extent, voyage case, same In this court held available after the L.Ed. the dangerous relinquishment starts —to correct conditions of control over that ship.” independent .aboard the contractor This well be the vessel an However, already noted, true. as to exonerate owner did serve ap liability: held in the Petterson case that absence from absolute even by plied equipment of control owner that not exoner rule' defective does brought liability by him from had the ate which on board for unsea worthy conditions. We think contractor over the owner that point, of rationale decision On this no control. Petterson extends as affirming unseaworthy arising case, in S. Petterson v. Alaska conditions after began Co., voyage Cir., 9 205 the ing. S. F.2d overruled those earlier aris court, hold, although therefore, We several of fact decisions —a Compagnie complained the condition here which we noted Berti did not Navigation began Cyprien Fabre, voyage until arise after the De 2 213 foreign recovery port, F.2d 397. also our vessel was See decision in Tar kington was not barred on that account. United States Lines 2 222 F.2d 358. Since lack of control does problem nowWe come to the main prevent accrual of absolute lia presence apple this case. Did the of an bility unseaworthiness, there is peel public floor corridor why liability depend reason unseaworthy vessel constitute an upon notice to the owner. condition, for the harmful effect of which

However, problems pre other absolutely the owner is liable to a mem sented. Here the this, accident occurred aft ber of crew? As to voyage er the involving had been commenced and been a number of cases transi foreign while the port. tory temporarily vessel docked in a substances in the ves It now seems settled that an owner harm, sel and cause in which it absolutely injuries liable for sustained was held that there was no breach of by inception warranty a seaman after Cooking seaworthiness. voyage injuries by when are caused ham United unseaworthy condition existed certiorari denied 340 U.S. voyage 675; vessel commenced her Adamowski v. before departed or Corp., D.C., F.Supp. 115, she her home Oil Gulf before from port. States, Cir., 523; Dixon v. United affirmed Daniels v. Packing Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y., Carlisle Co. v. San Pacific-Atlantic S. S. danger, F.Supp. Seeandbee, 66 Lykes Balado Bros. F.2d 577. Co., Cir., 179 F.2d 943. case, decided, The Petterson later Here, alleged however, plain unsea- makes results reached worthy itself, condition, justified like the accident this line cases cannot be unseaworthy because of the misbehavior of such existence fact that mere disposition skill of a whose brought seaman knowl- was not condition ordinary op- equal men of that edge lacked is the he owner calling, unsea- it does not become prevent condi- or correct the the worthy portunity to temporary condi- Nevertheless, reason of does tion. go tion caused transient substance hold that unseaworthiness so far as to as fit service every the vessel was defect in a even so arises maintenance, service. in similar similar vessels equipment and in its holding essentially transitory consisting sub- This of a

whether 834, Vincent, Cir., this, 1 194 subse- v. As to Doucette otherwise. stance quent 838, make that Su- which it was said decision the Petterson to to the seaworthy ob- held, sea- is not his owner in a suit vessel preme has ligated possible ves- provide “the best member to fellow an assault man for obligation gear” is but and that his crew, liable sel and owner was gear oifending by provision of a and only seaman satisfied because “ if “reasonably disposition seaman- safe suitable” even ‘equal in not ship may equipment “more ordinary have been men in call- there ” Lykes perfect in detail.” ing.’ or more Bros. S. S. modern Boudoin v. Compagnie 382, De 336, held in In We so Berti v. 75 384. S.Ct. 348 U.S. Cyprien supra. Navigation Fabre, it We opinion makes the court Boudoin our abundantly not over- ventured a conclusion that that it has clear holding long-settled Pet- not conflict with the that to doctrine ruled the seaworthy to be not need terson case. The later decision vessel does Lykes mishap, it Boudoin v. for from all cause free —that reasonably Corp. enough its view. S. S. confirms that Bros. is is opinion fit. although so, Silvia, hold, is owner And we court cited absolutely 8, 241, provide 7, 462, liable for failure 43 L.Ed. U.S. up which measures “the test of seaworthi- vessel that its statement cargo law, perfec- ves- of that standard not is whether the is suit] ness [in cargo.” carry reasonably tion but reasonable fitness. fit sel is supplied.) effect (Emphasis And like Since the dismissal of the claim Southwark, 1, 24 191 U.S. it cited The alleged unseaworthiness was not approved 1, 48 L.Ed. required by the bare facts stated in the v. Over- test in Keen use made of this findings below, necessary it becomes Tankship Corp., 2 194 F.2d seas consider whether there was sufficient Judge Learned Hand’s quoting from questions evidence on this issue to raise opinion case as only of fact which the trial can. Lykes Bros. Jones this, resolve. toAs there was some tes Corp., And 204 F.2d 815. tending timony support possible in sea- opinion, the test of as to Boudoin (1) gar ferences the absence of problem, worthiness, further said: “The bage proxi chutes on the vessel was the many law, aspects one as with (2) mate cause of the accident and degree. within the Was the assault comparable generally provid vessels are customary standards usual Especially ed with such chutes.1 since so, calling?” said, one If it was “it is testimony questions this ibility, involves of cred every crew risks of the sea weight any its inferences takes.” may, may not, require are for determination import matters judge. the trial Bou think the We just the vessel not doin case is tor, trier consider generally which the comparable vessels 1. That judging Hooper, J. The T. of unseaworthiness. is one fac provided chutes F.2d 737. necessarily fac- conclusive tor, but practice began Reversed and remanded for retrial 1833 with Estho Lear, and, the issue of unseaworthiness. Pet. since L.Ed. then, See, frequently adopted. g., Armstrong Lear, e. 71- 8 Pet. FRANK, Judge (concurring). Circuit 863; 8 L.Ed. Rio United States v. agree circumstances, I Irrigation Co., Grande Dam & only we should remand not for further 619; 423-424, findings,1 but for a retrial of issue Light City Lincoln Gas & Electric Co. v. unseaworthiness. For Lincoln, 349, 361-365, including courts, Court and other federal Motor Co. Ford court, our have often that “to the held B., v. N. L. R. injustice may done,” end that not be Leventhal, Porter v. proper (1) only and wise to remand Benz v. Celeste findings (2) further but also for a Dyeing Dressing Corp., Fur evidence, retrial on additional even when 845, 848; Levesque H. F. appellant stands, on the record as it Co., 587; 585, McGraw & 2 165 F.2d plaintiff, has not made out his case as Spring-Filled Kay or his Corp. Nachman defense as a This defendant. v. 459, desirable, clarify 140, 73; 1. I think it 68 in order S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. Johnson to 1948, 46, retrial, point the issues on the v. out United 333 68 U.S. that, 391, 468; even on the S.Ct. 92 evidence now L.Ed. Wilkerson v. record, judge reasonably McCarthy, 1949, 53, the trial could 336 U.S. 69 S.Ct. 413, 497; York, have found that 93 L.Ed. Affolder Now (a) garbage plaintiff 1950, 96, Co., on C. & L. St. R. 339 U.S. slipped present way 509, 683; 70 S.Ct. L.Ed. New because of the garbage; 94 Stone v. ship York, Co., 1953, handled its C. & St. R.L. 344 U.S. (b) ship 407, oppor- 358, 97 441; had a reasonable 73 S.Ct. L.Ed. Smalls v. tunity by allowing garbage Co., 1955, Atlantic Coast Line R. 348 — spill prevent presence 946, 439, reversing 75 of that U.S. S.Ct. 4 —to garbage; 842; Lehigh 216 F.2d Palum v. Val (c) ley Co., 5-6; 3, another similar vessel R. 2 had aban- 165 F.2d Korte handling garbage York, Co., Cir., this doned mode of v. New N. H. & H. R. 2 garbage 86, fortiori, per had substituted chutes. 88. A is it support The evidence which would missible in a suit such a seaman on findings is as follows: unseaworthiness. For (1) Jenkinson, Miss a stewardess held owed duties a ship voyage, higher Marine Flasher on the same to its seamen rank than day testified thus: Before the on which those of a railroad to its workers. See plaintiff’s happened, Pennsylvania Co., accident she had Callen R. 332 U.S. frequently garbage off,” (cf. 631), seen “fall 625 68 S.Ct. 92 L. (cid:127)passageway contrary elsewhere, 242, rejecting suggestion from over- Ed. drums, containing garbage, Pennsylvania loaded made Ricketts v. R. they being ship’s 757, pages 768-769, hauled were side. 2 at Several witnesses testified that certain 164 A.L.R. 387. ship’s personnel assigned Co., Cir., were In Petterson v. Alaska S. S. 9 keeping passageway 479, 478, clean. 205 F.2d making the court said: “In testimony judge rely From this sure this inference we do not ly ipsa could draw reasonable inference that the tort doctrine of res lo- garbage plaintiff slipped quitur, although similar”; on which had the result dropped pulled affirmed, opin- when the drums were this decision was without through passageway. ion, by Were this in Alaska S. A., Petterson, under the F. B. L. 396, suit or the Jones Co. v. 347 U.S. Act, 601, I think there can be no doubt that 98 L.Ed. 798. proper. See, (2) inference that, such an would be Miss Jenkinson also testified g., Kurn, 1946, serving Lavender v. Flasher, e. on The U.S. before Marine 740, 645, 916; Pyle, 66 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. Jesion she had worked on The Ernie Co., 1947, Flasher; v. Boston & M. owski R. R. like the Marine C-4 and that 452, 401, Pyle, garbage 329 U.S. The Ernie she L.Ed. had seen 416; Co., 1947, similarly they gar- v. Union put Ellis Pac. R. handled “until 649, 598, bage (Emphasis U.S. added.) chutes in it.” 572; Thompson, 1947, Lillie v. 787; Mfg. 781, Co„ Cir., 139 F.2d able devices. It never set its own tests, usages. persuasive Jamison, Cir., 119. however Pfeil v. 245 F. be-its say must Courts in the end what is re that, colleagues say My seem ; quired precautions impera there are win, plaintiff persuade the must order to disregard tive that even their universal gen- comparable vessels trial “that will not excuse their Wabash omission. (Em- erally provided with chutes.” McDaniels, 454, R. Co. v. 459- phasis added.) However, in a footnote Texas & statement, they qualify state- this Behymer, P. R. v.Co. citing ment, Hooper, 2 The T. J. Shandrew think desirable I Chicago, etc., Co., Cir., R. 142 F. point explicitly that case out more what Maynard Buck, 100 Mass. unseaworthy tugs held decided. There we 40. But here there was no custom all ; failure, re- radio to install receiving them, as to some sets they ceiving of which sets means not; urged some did the most that can be Ar- would received broadcasts have they gen yet is that had not become lington have bad weather Certainly eral. such we need ease their seek them to shelter caused pause; thought when some tpws. showed The evidence necessary, may say device at least we although tugs equipped, thus were right, were others too adopted tugs generally had not ** * tugs slack. We hold the there Judge (per equipment. Learned We said properly fore because had say Hand) fair to : “It is not they got equipped, would have the Ar among general custom coastwise awas lington reports. injury awas direct tugs. equip line One their so carriers consequence of this unseaworthiness.” it; rest, they relied did as for alone Hooper case, by far can be upon crews, so In T. J. their cited we adequate way analogy re- all. An relied at of have as to “reasonable said fit- tug ceiving dealing ness,” coastwise a suitable cases set with standard of got negligence and is rea- at small cost now can sonably be reasonable care cases. In obviously up; kept litigation, reliable such some of the cases exclude great protection general their practice of of a is a source evidence if offered day they every by can receive a eases hold tows. Twice defendant. Other by predictions, (a) the widest it is plaintiff these admissible when offered every information, departure possible available to show defendant’s (b) miles or three hundred within two from the standard of due care * * * They by can have more. when offered defendant to show against dangers of which adherence to it. furthest protection But the hand way. go that, Is it cases in no other where de- can learn e., such had fendant introduces evidence—i. answer that the business a final then receiving adopted generally others behaved he did—it has yet sets ? that persuasive power doubt, are, some but can never cases where courts There case, conclusive, jury general practice in a the be to make seem justify diligence; proper directed for the calling cannot verdict standard given currency In Texas & P. R. Co. v. Be- to defendant. have indeed we 468, 470, hymer, Ar- Ketterer v. notion ourselves. rejected Cir., defend- 47 L.Ed. Co., 2 247 F. mour L.R.A.1918D, argument ant’s that the trial erred 798; Spang Chalfant & charge declining jury “that the in question Corp., Dimon, etc., v.Co. li- whether the defendant was reason- cases in most Indeed freight depended on whether pru- able common prudence in fact able dence; handled the usual ordi- train was strictly is never its meas- but (per Holmes, nary The Court unduly manner.” calling may have ure; a whole usually J.) is done “What said: avail- adoption new and lagged leagues misinterpret ought done, it. There but seem to to be of what evidence by employed plaintiff, ought on de fixed a seaman to be done is what ship, injured prudence, wheth as a result fendant’s of reasonable assault, exceptionally complied not.” usually of an with brutal er it Richardson, knife, by seaman, who was Trunk R. Co. v. a fellow In Grand “ person dangerous propensities the Court ‘a ” assignment proclivities.’ of error no evidence “The second There was said: testimony is, of excluded that sonably or could rea that the court defendant knew by propensit to show the defendant learned of fered those companies in practice short, of railroad usual ies.2 latent the defect was country yet not to ship; that section and undiscoverable bridges employ like approving quoting a watchman for Court— impossible destroyed. Judge for us It is one Learned Hand’s any why evidence Tankship Corp., reason to see Keen Overseas issue admitted. The have been 194 F.2d 515—held be defendant liable de was whether the ship unseaworthy, to be determined “ir cause the negligence; guilty fendant had been respective any (Here fault.” is, had failed whether the defendant beyond Rolph, went diligence caution and to exercise that ship 299 F. where the was held liable demanded, and which the circumstances for a brutal assault a seaman who ordinarily prudent men exercise. brutal.) was known to be by which its con Hence the standard By way of well-considered dictum— duct was be measured was not the answering argument made companies in conduct of other railroad below, court 211 F.2d 618—the vicinity; certainly usual not their Boudoin’s Court differentiated conduct.” See also Wabash R. Co. injures case from one in sailor McDaniels, 454, 460-461, 2 S. fist-fight. another sailor a sailor’s Young 605; Brigham Ct. ship The Court stated that then the University Lillywhite, 118 F. assimilating liable, would not be such a 836, 840, 2d 137 A.L.R. Worces case to that of re- seaworthiness with Torpedo Co., Cir., ter v. F. Pure spect ship’s gear, to a hull and as to 945, Ice, Inc., 2d livan, Sul Uline warranty which it said: “The sea- U.S.App.D.C. 104, 187 F.2d ship worthiness does not mean that the 82, 84, negligence suit, the court held more, can weather all storms.” No said denying judge, that the trial a direct effect, ship’s the Court must defendant, correctly ed verdict for the disposition crew be men with the of a customary ruled “that what was short, perfection Lord Chesterfield.3 In (as did) usual” shown what others gear required, of hull or or crew is not merely persuasive “was to what con as possible. perfection because is not Thus care”; stituted due the court said “the shipowner does not warrant that the generally pro mere fact that exhibitors destroy worst of sel, will storms not the ves- protection vide a certain measure to ships for the reason that to able spectators preclude pos does not withstand all are storms not available. sibility that reasonable men would have No more are available crew-members provided greater measure.” dispositions with such will use my colleagues only As make much of Bou- their fists in circumstances that Lykes Co., ordinary doin v. Bros. S. S. 348 U.S. would stimulate an office-worker 336, 382, engage I think to to desirable a brawl. If the owner has case, my among discuss that as I think col- selected a sailor from those men Ap- quoted 2. See Boudoin’s ease in the Court of 3. Here the Court cited and from peals, 618, page Judge 211 F.2d Learned Hand’s Jones 620, Lykes Co., Cir., S. Bros. Gesellschaft, Hamburg, etc., May v. seamen’s available are alone who 348, 162, he risk take the calling, fellows Act Harter under usually both suits rough men such as as will be language, statutory by explicit which, are. recognized diligence,” a “due is gentler men fact The non-statutory standard relaxation Of of defense. a matter available opin- If the Doucette of seaworthiness. fact, obvious, courts well-known, stand- the seaworthiness ion means just notice, take judicial take demanding despite grows more ard never inability of the well-known notice availability ready de- new safer demolish. ships no storm will to obtain wrong variance vices, and at I think they were If are notorious. facts Those ruling Judge Hand’s Learned with defense, ship, not, make out to supra.4 quoted Hooper, T. J. of such evidence introduce have to would facts. Circuit, majority Third A plaintiff an owed defendant Here the Cookingham v. United place duty provide a safe shipowner held that a has if defendant well be It work. re for an unsafe condition liable means, prove were that there were “transitory” pres sulting solely passage- available, keep reasonably Judge foreign substance. of a ence garbage, way existence free of admirably dissenting case, Biggs, in that dangerous not have con- would condition follows, cor stated, I believe the what unseaworthiness; but the fact stituted duty position: of the owner “The rect unavailability defense which is a of such seaworthy ship is an ab maintain a proving. the burden defendant Osceola, 189 U.S. one: The solute connection, I think it also 173-175, In this 47 L.Ed. 760. Vincent, negligence. to discuss Doucette Seas has no connection colleagues my Sieracki, 838 which Shipping 328 U.S. Co. v. plaintiff, a member There Mahnich cite. fishing vessel, crew of defendant’s v. Southern S. working injured ship electric when If 88 L.Ed. 561. winch; plaintiff use, ship his action gear is not safe her unseaworthiness; seaworthy. tried the case was I think that both jury verdict for which returned a to a and this court have returned court below affirming Circuit, The First defendant. of Plamals the doctrine verdict, judgment Rio, on the held that Pinar Del 48 S. neg discretion, trial In Mahnich v. the 827. Ct. ligence evidence, cases, Co., supra, Supreme to exclude offered the Southern by plaintiff, equipment, pointed that “more out that deci safer before the ‘ * * * right perfect detail”, Osceola, or more the modern in The sion injuries recover available. The court said that the seaman to for the by unseaworthiness to have of seaworthiness is the same seems caused negligent negligence cases, e., failure, supply usu i. on the rested as that been “reasonably equip ally the officers or fellow sea safe and suitable” seaman’s seaworthy supply appliances’, chiefly The court cited Jones men ment. 457), (321 and The that decisions. or other Act duty plain of the cited, too, Rolph, made the The 299 F. 52 Osceola shipowner maintain the vessel in a point for I think not reasons —which seaworthy Southwark, an condition was absolute one. also The above—and stated ease, the Mahnich In the and competent, a were tiff’s fellow-workers question in Berti Doucette case the 4. We cited Cyprien Navigation skill work of available Compagnie De job. sort of in that Fabre, But ers 400. plain question whether Del in this Pinar itself ease both disapproved v. The Plamals decision the court below this court that of latter the extent Rio to just principle stated. irrelevant is shipowner’s under the doctrine with the conflicted page liability.” page 64 S.Ct. at at majority would I assume Third has inter- The Circuit since foreign substance, if the concede preted Cookingham “transitory” its doc- stairway upon jello, had remained ship’s liability mean trine to days, the several ‘Peckham’ for “transitory” depends object upon the a length ship, stairway, and hence the during object of time which the unseaworthy. have been deemed to been Pope Crawford v. removed. See grease upon rope spills Someone Talbot, Inc., Cir., 789- ap- stairway. rope, an jello my colleagues I understand stairway unsea- pliance, are and the repudiate that thesis. The Third Cir- thereby worthy un- rendered cuit, case, explaining in a still later in- were for which fit for the use Cookingham doctrine, has said that Mahnich As was said tended. case, (a) turns a distinction between page 104, at 321 U.S. at provide seaworthy duty ship, Osceola, page quoting from The absolute, (b) duty provide * * obligation is “to the owners’ which, place work, a safe that court ap- keep proper supply in order the holds, only. demands reasonable care ’ ship.” appurtenant pliances Belships Co., Cir., Brabazon See spilling grease rope upon a While 904, 906. I think that distinction might stairway jello upon an directly at odds with recovery negligence for which act of might my colleagues’ I Court’s decisions. opinion read injured an seaman un- be had repudiating it also. Act, 46 Section der the Jones 688, U.S.C.A. dangerous once the situation obligation created it is the absolute shipowner If it is to correct it. injured corrected and a seaman is shipowner must answer because damages. equivalent of This place requirement of ‘a safe to work’ seaman, doctrine novel in admiralty See Mahnich law. PRODUCTS, Inc., BECHIK Plaintiff- page 102, opinion, 321 U.S. at Appellant, page 458, and the authorities cited apparently majority are of therein. Inc., PRODUCTS, corpora- FLEXIBLE stairway opinion that because the tion, Defendant-Appellee, ‘transitorily’ in ‘Peckham’ was ship- state that this absolves the unsafe Goldstein, Max and Leo Morris Goldstein liability. Incidentally,

owner Goldstein, Crown Mattress d/b/a long appears jello how nowhere Co., Defendants. stairway, albeit, remained No. Docket 23685. during view, period my stairway unsafe im- was in an state is Appeals Court of United States Second Circuit. under the circumstances material stairway If was in a case. instant 15, 1955. Argued June dangerous for the use for condition 9, 1955. August Decided intended, however, ‘transi- unseaworthy. torily’, remained it was persisted. condition the unsafe which has intruded of time The element

Case Details

Case Name: Catherine Poignant, Libellant-Appellant v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Jul 22, 1955

Citation: 225 F.2d 595

Docket Number: 285, Docket 23530

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.