U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

Albert B. Sines, an Incompetent, by John Victor Tilly, Guardian of His Estate v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 1, 1970 · Kilkenny, Per Curiam, Plummer, Trask

430 F.2d 644; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7500; 1972 A.M.C. 2414 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Eugene L. Gartland (argued), Jennings, Gartland & Tilly, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., Robert McGrouther, Jr. (argued), Graydon S. Staring, of Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., John P. Meadowns, West Coast Office Admr. & Shipping, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.

Oberson v. US DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERV. (9th Cir. 2008)
Orberson v. United States (9th Cir. 2008)
Oberson v. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (9th Cir. 2008)
Oberson v. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (9th Cir. 2006)
Landry De Orzan, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant (9th Cir. 1998)
Theodore D. Sauers, Through His Guardian, Irene G. Ellis v. Alaska Barge and Transport, Inc., an Alaska Corp., and the United States of America (9th Cir. 1979)
Famous Knitwear Corporation v. Drug Fair, Inc., Famous Knitwear Corporation v. Drug Fair, Inc. (4th Cir. 1974)
Honea v. Matson Navigation Company (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment in a suit in admiralty brought against the government by appellant, a merchant seaman injured while employed on a government vessel.

The district court found that the government’s negligence was a proximate cause of appellant’s injury, and that appellant suffered damages in the sum of $74,264. The court further found that appellant’s contributory negligence was a proximate cause of his injury and reduced the award by fifty per-cent. Judgment was entered in favor of appellant in the sum of $37,132.

Appellant now alleges that the court erred in finding that he was negligent. This is a factual finding which may be disturbed on appeal only if clear *645 ly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Rederi A/B Soya v. SS Grand Grace, 369 F.2d 159, 162-163 (9th Cir. 1966). We hold that the trial court’s finding on the record including the depositions was not clearly erroneous.

The court’s finding that appellant had a reduced work life expectancy was likewise supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Nor did the court err in failing to prepare special findings on damages. The court substantially adopted the proposed findings of fact submitted to it by appellant. Appellant made no motion for a more detailed computation of damages. Although the findings on damages were somewhat vague, there is no doubt as to the propriety of the total amount awarded. See Dwyer v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 276 F.2d 653, 654 (2d Cir. 1960).

The judgment is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.