Court Opinion

ID: 9446054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:44:53.914105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:30.365096
License: Public Domain

CLARK, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
My brothers characterize libelant’s theory to be that the evidence compelled the trial court to find the source of his tuberculosis in seaman Sisko, thus supporting a recovery on the basis of unseaworthiness. See Keen v. Overseas Tankship Corp., 2 Cir., 194 F.2d 515, certiorari denied Overseas Tankship Corp. v. Keen, 343 U.S. 966, 72 S.Ct. 1061, 96 L.Ed. 1363; and Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 348 U.S. 336, 75 S.Ct. 382, 99 L.Ed. 354, amended 350 U.S. 811, 76 S.Ct. 38, 100 L.Ed. 727. But I think this overstates libelant’s argument to this court to his disadvantage and leads to their setting up of a straw man which they then easily destroy. For, as they point out, there is substantial, though not con-clusory, evidence in the record that libel-ant actually had tuberculosis before he shipped aboard the Sprague. If this is *816true he could not have contracted the disease while with Sisko. But the lower court specifically avoided deciding whether or not he had tuberculosis at that time.1 Therefore this alleged condition should not be considered so as to defeat his appeal and we should review what the trial court actually decided. It found that “[t]here was no proof whatever that Sisko had tuberculosis while he roomed with Quintín.” Finding 45. Therefore it rejected libelant’s theory that the Sprague was unseaworthy, and denied recovery. If Finding 45 is to be held erroneous, as I believe it must be, the case should be remanded for further findings.
Finding 45 is contradicted by considerable testimony and supported by little. From the record it appears that Sisko, who had been living with libelant aboard the Sprague for a number of months, left the ship on May 30, 1949, thereafter was rejected for service on the Diddo because of a hernia, and subsequently shipped out on the Humphreys. He went to the hospital from the Humphreys in November 1949 — five months after leaving libelant and the Sprague — and was diagnosed as a moderately advanced tubercular. Li-belant’s doctor at the trial, testifying on the basis of Sisko’s medical history, was of the opinion that Sisko had T. B. while aboard the Sprague. The doctor also testified that Sisko contracted the disease from Mae Turner. Miss Turner and Sisko were married sometime in 1941 and lived together for ten days. They lived together again for two days in 1946 during an attempted reconciliation. There was evidence that Miss Turner had communicable tuberculosis during these periods. Regardless of this relationship, however, the testimony of Sis-ko’s October condition showed that he was afflicted while aboard the Sprague. On cross examination, respondent’s doctor, testifying on the basis of a report prepared in 1950 concerning Sisko’s condition, said that Sisko could have had the disease for a number of years prior to that time. These facts are not compatible with the finding that “[t]here was no proof whatever that Sisko had tuberculosis while he roomed with Quin-tín.” That finding seems to be based on statements by officers and crew that Sis-ko appeared healthy and never complained while on the Sprague and that he must have been examined and found free from T. B. when rejected for duty on the Diddo. This latter finding is speculative at best.
In my view, therefore, the case should be remanded for definitive findings concerning the source of Quintin’s condition. This is unfortunate in view of the long delays in this case, but I believe it necessary in the interest of justice. The action was begun on September 29, 1952, and the six-day trial was completed on January 26, 1955. Not until February 25, 1957, did the trial judge file his opinion and findings, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 149 F.Supp. 226 — a delay which is indeed distressing, since final judgment was not had until June 11, 1957. That the findings are ambiguous and not truly dis-positive of the case may be due to the delay; we have often emphasized the value of fact findings made at the conclusion of the testimony.2 That libelant’s counsel has pressed upon us with undue assiduity certain unnecessary motions involving another case of course must not blind us to his client’s proper claims.

. After reviewing the expert testimony concerning whether or not libelant had tuberculosis in 1945, the court found:
“43. It is always a delicate matter for a layman to decide matters on which experts in the field are in sharp disagreement, and in this case there is no rational basis for me to prefer the opinion of Quintin’s expert over the opinions of the two experts who testified to the contrary.” This is hardly a finding that libelant did have tuberculosis in 1945.

. See Hellenic Lines v. S.S. Exmouth, 2 Cir., 253 F.2d 473, note 1; Polarus S.S. Co. v. The Sandefjord, 2 Cir., 236 F.2d 270, 272, certiorari denied Viriks Rederi A/S v. Polarus S.S. Co., 352 U.S. 982, 77 S.Ct. 383, 1 L.Ed.2d 365; Hecht, Levis & Kahn, Inc. v. The President Buchanan, 2 Cir., 236 F.2d 627, 629; Grace Line v. The C. Hayward Meseck, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 150 F.Supp. 425, affirmed 2 Cir., 248 F.2d 736.