Case Name: Urbain DARDAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS and Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-08-11
Citations: 447 F.2d 952
Docket Number: No. 71-1624
Parties: Urbain DARDAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS and Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 447
Pages: 952–953

Head Matter:
Urbain DARDAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS and Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 71-1624
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 11, 1971.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1971.
Kendall L. Vick, Jesse S. Guillot, New Orleans, La., Philip K. Jones, Norman L. Sisson, Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellants.
Louis B. Merhige, William L. Crull, III, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before COLEMAN, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
[1] Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970. 431 F.2d 409. Part I.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM :
Appealing from an adverse judgment below in an action tried without a jury under the Jones Act, Title 46, U. S.C., Section 688, and under general maritime law, holding them responsible in damages to the extent of $46,424.00 for negligence and for unseaworthiness of a car-ferry boat operated temporarily across Goose Bayou, near LaFitte, Louisiana, for injuries received February 25, 1968, by the plaintiff-appellee, Dardar, asserted to be serving as a seaman aboard said ferry, the appellants, Louisiana State Department of Highways and its liability insurer, Houston Fire and Casualty Insurance Company attack the judgment appealed from by three claims of asserted error:
(1) whether the car-shuttle ferry, permanently anchored as it was to the bayou bank, was in navigation, and hence within the court's admiralty jurisdiction, which we are urged to answer "No";
(2) whether the appellee was a seaman and as such entitled to maintenance and cure, which we are likewise urged to answer "No"; and
(3) whether the trial court erroneously found the Department of Highways negligent and the appellee not contribu-torily negligent with his negligence being the sole proximate cause of the accident and injury, which it is asserted, we should answer "Yes".
As to the third point raised, and further as to the questions of fact inhering in the first and second points raised, the appellants have, in our judgment, failed to demonstrate that the trial judge's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. F.R.Civ.P., Rule 52(a); McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20.
As to the questions of law raised by the first and second points on appeal, we think that they are refuted, without need of further embellishment by us, by the trial court's carefully detailed and complete findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment, reported at 322 F.Supp. 1115.
Affirmed.
. During repairs to a nearby bridge.