Case Name: Phillip Joseph TINERELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1973-11-15
Citations: 486 F.2d 1370
Docket Number: No. 71-2869
Parties: Phillip Joseph TINERELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 486
Pages: 1370–1370

Head Matter:
Phillip Joseph TINERELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 71-2869.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 15, 1973.
Seymour L. Ellison, (argued), Belli, Ashe, Ellison, Choulos & Lieff, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Graydon S. Staring (argued), Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment in this admiralty injury case is affirmed.
As a question of negligence, we cannot find the district court's findings clearly erroneous.
As to any strict liability theory, the circumstance that the district court in its view of the evidence could not connect Bethlehem (the repairs contractor) to missing bolts, which absence was a factor in causation, relieves us of the necessity of exploring the limits of such a theory.
Plaintiff, a sailor of the United States Navy, obviously had a strong case for unseaworthiness against the government except that his injury was one where his status as a sailor denied him the right to sue. (The navy owned the ship.) The government has its own provisions to compensate those in the service injured in the line of duty.
Judgment affirmed.