Phillip Joseph Tinerella, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., Defendant-appellee, 486 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir. 1973)
Annotate this CaseSeymour L. Ellison, (argued), Belli, Ashe, Ellison, Choulos & Lieff, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Graydon S. Staring (argued), Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The judgment in this admiralty injury case is affirmed.
As a question of negligence, we cannot find the district court's findings clearly erroneous.
As to any strict liability theory, the circumstance that the district court in its view of the evidence could not connect Bethlehem (the repairs contractor) to missing bolts, which absence was a factor in causation, relieves us of the necessity of exploring the limits of such a theory.
Plaintiff, a sailor of the United States Navy, obviously had a strong case for unseaworthiness against the government except that his injury was one where his status as a sailor denied him the right to sue. (The navy owned the ship.) The government has its own provisions to compensate those in the service injured in the line of duty.
Judgment affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
