reactivation and it, therefore, is not guilty of negligence.
Decision of the remaining question as to the right of the United States over and against Atlantic is not really necessary in view of the conclusions set forth above. However, the Court has no hesitation in stating that, if its conclusions were otherwise and it had held that the facts of this case entitled libellant to a recovery under the Sieracki case, the United States would be entitled to judgment over and against Atlantic for the full amount of libellant's damages. The testimony as to the happening of the accident and the entire surrounding circumstances has convinced the Court that the primary fault for this occurrence rests with Atlantic. There were no plugs of the kind described located immediately above the point where libellant was working and pressure was required to cause the plug to fall in such a manner as to strike the libellant. The primary fault, therefore, can be ascribed to the conduct of Atlantic's employees. In that event, the accident having happened from the 'fault, negligence, wrongful acts and omissions' of Atlantic, the United States would be entitled to full indemnity under the terms of the contract.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this suit.
2. The respondent, United States of America, under the facts of this case did not owe the duty to provide a completely seaworthy vessel to the libellant, a shoreside worker engaged in the reactivation processes of the S. S. Mary Austin.
3. The 'service' being rendered by the libellant aboard the S. S. Mary Austin was not one traditionally done by seamen.
4. The condition of the S. S. Mary Austin when delivered by the United States of America to Atlantic for reactivation purposes only did not constitute the S. S. Mary Austin an unseaworthy vessel.
5. The respondent's duty to provide libellant with a safe place to work is not an absolute duty, but rather a requirement of reasonable care under the circumstances.
6. The respondent did not breach its duty to provide libellant with a reasonably safe place to work.
7. The respondent is entitled to judgment in its favor.
An appropriate order will be entered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.