259 F. Supp. 663 | D. Mass. | 1966
OPINION
This libel, by agreement of proctors for the parties, was tried to the Court on the issue of liability only, I find and rule as follows:
Libelant is a shipyard worker who suffered personal injuries in the course of his employment as a rigger at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s floating dry-dock in East Boston. His injuries were incurred while he was assisting in repairs being made by his employer, Bethlehem Steel, on June 19, 1961, to the USS GLACIER, a United States Navy icebreaker. He was and is an experienced rigger who worked for Bethlehem Steel from 1943 to June 19, 1961, with some interruptions, due to military service, to certain strikes which occurred at the shipyard, and to occasional slack periods. During these interruptions he worked in the construction industry as a carpenter’s helper and a cement-finisher’s helper. For a period of from three to four years immediately prior to the
The theory of the libel herein is set out solely as a case in tort for negligence, despite oral argument of the proctor for libelant that he has also stated a cause of action for breach of warranty of seaworthiness on the part of the United States as owner of the vessel. Suffice it to say that on the evidence adduced at the trial, there has been a total failure of libelant to show that any conduct occurred on June 19, 1961 which was participated in by any officer, enlisted man, civilian employee, or anyone else for whose conduct the United States is legally liable. There has been no showing of any participation by the United States in the erection, equipping, use or supervision of the use of the staging on the drydock from which libelant fell. Libelant was never aboard the USS GLACIER. Absent the positioning of someone into the case for whose conduct the United States is liable, libelant’s case in tort for negligence must fail, even assuming in his favor that a negligent act was committed by other employees of Bethlehem Steel.
With regard to libelant’s contention that he is entitled to recover against the United States on a breach of warranty of seaworthiness, I rule (1) that libelant has failed to allege a claim for breach of warranty in his libel, and (2) that, assuming in libelant’s favor
For the above reasons, the libel is dismissed, and the petition of respondent United States under Admiralty Rule 56 is also dismissed.