Task: songer_weightev

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?" This includes discussions of whether the litigant met the burden of proof. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
The duty of the master of the steamer with respect to dangerous loading or stowage is fully recognized in our opinion holding her liable.
None of the decisions referred to by the petitioner on the question of its own fault covers or even closely resembles this case, which appears to be rather unusual in its facts. The installation of the cribbing was not a supplying of equipment or fittings necessary to secure cargo coming within the reasonable capacity afforded by the ship’s structure, but an enlargement of her structural capacity for carrying goods beyond what she could otherwise naturally and reasonably take. This the ship was not required to provide in the absence of special agreement. As the installation in this case was made by the charterer, it was under the duty of exercising due care and skill that the containers were properly constructed; and it is not excused for its failure in those respects by the facts that the master did not objeet to the way in which the containers were built, and permitted the vessel to go to sea with them.
Petition denied.

Question: Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D