Court Opinion

ID: 9446492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:55:37.322529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:40.019218
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Recovery was here affirmed on the ground of unseaworthiness. Since there was no evidence of impleaded respondent’s responsibility for the particular condition, the third party complaint against it was necessarily dismissed.
The opinion did not discuss the question of whether the shipowner had failed to provide a safe place to work in permitting the stevedore to employ the method it used for removing the shore. The lack of discussion was because the sole ground urged for such method having been foreseeably unsafe was that the shore might not have been toe-nailed. In that view, the proximate cause would still have been the existence of the un-seaworthy condition. Since we considered it unreasonable to charge the shipowner with notice of that defect,1 it is implicit in the opinion that it would have been even more unreasonable to so charge the stevedore.
The petition for rehearing will be denied.

. See Filipek v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 2 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 734, 737 reported since the opinion in this case was filed.