Court Opinion

ID: 9455437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:21:52.125455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:35.891177
License: Public Domain

WINTER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
On this record the towmotor operation was unquestionably negligent. As the majority recognizes, the uncontradicted evidence was that while working in a restricted area where he knew that other persons were present and occupied, the towmotor operator without looking behind him backed his vehicle over Lundy’s foot. On these facts there was no jury issue as to operational negligencé. The only conclusion which could be reached was that the towmotor operator exhibited total lack of care by blind disregard of others.
The majority states that “our decisions do not require a finding of unseaworthiness as a matter of law from every negligent act or omission of a longshoreman.” The underpinning for the statement is purportedly the per curiam opinion denying rehearing in Venable and the language in Scott. Even if the correctness of the statement is assumed abstractly, this is not the rare or unusual case to which the statement is pertinent. For who can maintain that in these circumstances a towmotor operated without lookout was reasonably fit for its intended use? The majority is eloquently silent as to the circumstances from which the jury could so conclude. Because, in my view, this is not an issue on which fair-minded men could differ, I *916would conclude that transitory unseaworthiness did result as a matter of law and the district judge should have directed a verdict for Lundy.