William Curry v. Delta S.S. Lines, Inc., Formerly Known as & Doing Bus. as Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc., 342 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
William Curry v. Delta S.S. Lines, Inc., Formerly Known as & Doing Bus. as Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc., 342 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William CURRY, Appellant,
v.
DELTA STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., Formerly Known as and Doing Business as Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc., Appellee
21597_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 11, 1965.
342 F.2d 995
1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6258
George J. Moore, Mobile, Ala., for appellant., Alex T. Howard, Jr., George F. Wood, Mobile, Ala., MeCorvey, Turner, John-stone, Adams & May, Mobile, Ala., of counsel, for appellee.
Jones, Brown, Sheehy.
Published
PER CURIAM:

In this action appellant sought to recover damages because of personal injuries received by him while working as a longshoreman for his employer, a steve-doring company, in the loading of rail[*996] road Steel in the hold of a vessel owned by appellee. Appellant presented two theories of recovery, namely, (1) negligence of appellee, its servants, agents or employees and (2) unseaworthiness of appellee’s vessel. A jury trial was had. At the close of the evidence, the trial court concluded that there was no substantial evidence either of actionable negligence on the part of appellee, its agents, servants or employees or of the vessel being unseaworthy and granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment for the appellee. Appellant, in this appeal, complains of that action of the trial court.

A careful review of the record convinces us that the trial court was correct in its determination that there was no substantial evidence to support either appellant’s theories of recovery. The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.-