JUAN F. MARQUEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN EXPORT LINES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the admission of prior drunkenness evidence was not reversible error, nor was the jury charge on unseaworthiness inadequate.
A seaman was injured aboard a vessel and sued for damages. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant vessel owner.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unseaworthiness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff, a seaman, was injured while aboard defendant’s vessel, the S.S. Export Bay. The cause of the injury was a fall, allegedly occasioned by an encumbered condition of a catwalk built over cargo. From a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Appellant urges that reversible error was committed on the trial by the admission in evidence of appellant’s drunkenness on prior occasions and of his drinking before the accident. For a second point, appellant contends that the court failed adequately to instruct the jury as to what would constitute liability.
As to the “drunkenness” point, the testimony was relevant on the issue of plaintiff’s credibility and with relation to the amount of damages sustained, namely, time plaintiff worked. In fact, the court specifically charged that the testimony was received “solely on the issue of what is termed impeaching or attempting to impeach the credibility of a witness and, if you should get to it, on the question of determining the future employability of the witness.”
As to the adequacy of the charge with respect to unseaworthiness, the court formulated, in substance, its instructions upon decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals,1 on the subject of absolute duty to supply a seaworthy vessel and temporary conditions creating unseaworthiness. Such portions of the charge which appellant now points to were not made the subject of any exceptions upon the trial. In view of the adequacy of the charge in presenting to the jury the salient issues to be considered by it, any defects, to which no objection was taken, do not constitute reversible error. See Wilcox v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 375 F. 2d 744 (2d Cir., 1967).
Judgment affirmed.
. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 550, 80 S.Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1960); Pinto v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, 296 F. 2d 1, 4 (2d Cir. 1961); Blier v. United States Lines Co., 286 F. 2d 920, 924 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 836, 82 S.Ct. 32, 7 L.Ed. 2d 37 (1961).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivers v. Union Carbide Corp., 426 F.2d 633 (3d Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1960)
- Pinto v. States Marine Corp. OF Del., 296 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1961)
- Blier v. United States Lines Co., 286 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1961)
- Arthur Murray, Inc. v. Ricciardi, 368 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1961)
- Van Allen v. United States, 368 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1961)
- Wilcox v. Moore-McCORMACK Lines, Inc., 375 F.2d 744 (2d Cir. 1967)