From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gulf and South Am. S.S. Co., Inc. v. Simmons

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 24, 1968
394 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1968)

Opinion

No. 24912.

May 16, 1968. Rehearing Denied July 24, 1968.

Charles Kohlmeyer, Jr., New Orleans, La., Thomas W. Thorne, Jr., Robert C. Leininger, New Orleans, La., for T. Smith Son, Inc.; Lemle Kelleher, New Orleans, La., of counsel.

M.D. Yager, William E. Wright, New Orleans, La., Benjamin W. Yancey, New Orleans, La., for appellant-appellee, Gulf South American Steamship Co., Inc.; Terriberry, Rault, Carroll, Yancey Farrell, New Orleans, La., of counsel.

Edgar N. Quillin, Arabi, La., Ray Clement, New Orleans, La., for Edward Cabon Simmons.

Before TUTTLE and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.


The two judgments appealed from, one in favor of longshoreman Simmons against Gulf and American, and the other by the Steamship Company against T. Smith, the stevedoring company, posed only issues of fact for determination by the trial court. The appeals likewise present similar questions to us. There was ample evidence to warrant the judgments both on the main claim of Simmons (including the determination that Simmons was not guilty of contributory negligence) and on the cross claim by the Steamship Company against T. Smith, the stevedoring contractor, Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L. Ed. 133.

The judgments are affirmed.


Summaries of

Gulf and South Am. S.S. Co., Inc. v. Simmons

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 24, 1968
394 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1968)
Case details for

Gulf and South Am. S.S. Co., Inc. v. Simmons

Case Details

Full title:GULF AND SOUTH AMERICAN STEAMSHIP CO., Inc., Appellant, v. Edward Cabon…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jul 24, 1968

Citations

394 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1968)

Citing Cases

Scott v. SS Ciudad De Ibague

We can perceive no reason to conclude that the stevedoring contractor (1) failed to maintain a place of…

Reyes v. Vantage S. S. Co., Inc.

Were they intended to protect against the risk of the kind of harm that occurred here . . ..Id. at 134…