Legal Opinion
St. Claire v. Mid-Continent Barge Lines Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided July 28, 1965No. 3-64-Civ-194PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
DEVITT, Chief Judge.
The Court is responsible now for interpreting the special verdict returned by the jury on April 30, 1965 as follows:
*939“1. Was the vessel involved in this occurrence the barge M.W.T. 107? /YES/
(Yes or No)
2. Was the M.W.T. 107 unseaworthy at the time of the alleged occurrence in any respect? (Answer each Yes or No.)
a. Because of the bent and defective condition of the hatch cover and the gutters affixed thereto: /NO/
b. Because of the bent condition of the hatch cover securing pins: 1 /NO/
c. Because of the bent condition of the hatch cover securing pin sockets: /NO/
d. Because…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fred Fredericks v. American Export Lines, Inc. S. J. Farrington Iron Works, Inc. v. John W. McGrath CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
- Robert Spann v. J. LauritzenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
- Eddie Huff v. Matson Navigation Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Ralph Billeci v. United States of America, and California Stevedore and Ballast Company, Appellee-ImpleadedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- Alonzo McKnight v. N. M. Paterson & Sons, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Slaughter v. RondeDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1974