DELLAR

v.

SAMUEL GOLDWYN, INC. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Antoine v. Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc., 376 F.2d 443 (5th Cir. 1967)
  …on as to whether a stevedore’s negligence in the use of a ship’s seaworthy equipment makes the ship unseaworthy, doctrinal trends evidenced by its decisions since Seas Shipping Company v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099, reh. den. 328 U.S. 878, 66 S.Ct. 1116, 90 L.Ed. 1646, indicate that it would answer the question in the affirmative. It should be borne in mind, however, that the method used by the longshoremen in Forrante was not in aocordance with standard procedure, and there was a ti…
• Robichaux v. Kerr McGEE OIL Indus., Inc., 376 F.2d 447 (5th Cir. 1967)
  …powner owes a nondelegable duty to furnish a seaworthy vessel, and this duty ex-tends to intermediary employers who are performing a portion of the ship’s work. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946) reh. den. 328 U.S. 878, 66 S.Ct. 1116, 90 L.Ed. 1646. In addition, if there is an improper use of seaworthy equipment by the intermediary employees, resulting in injury to a worker, his claim might come squarely within the doctrine of Sieracki, supra, depending, of course…
• Leopoldo Sandoval v. Mitsui Sempaku K. K. Tokyo, 460 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1972)
  …engaged in classic seaman’s work of handling the lines of the vessel. He was, therefore, owed the warranty of seaworthiness by the vessel and its owner. See Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946), reh. denied, 328 U.S. 878, 66 S.Ct. 1116, 90 L.Ed. 1646 (1946), and Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 (1953). The defective cable belonged to the Canal Company and was being handled by its employees. But when the equipment was brought ab…