Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

McCullum v. United International Corp.

493 F.2d 501

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-03-11
Topic
general

OPINION PER CURIAM: The admiralty jurisdiction of the district court is in question on this appeal. The plaintiff-appellant was a longshoreman, employed by a stevedore company when he was injured on the pier in the course of unloading the defendant’s ship. Due either to a malfunction of a shore-based crane or to its improper operation by a fellow stevedore, a piece of cargo fell from the crane and struck the plaintiff as the crane swung from the ship to the deposit area on the pier. The plaintiff sued in admiralty, alleging that the defendant was negligent and its ship unseaworthy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff appeals.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed McCullum v. United International Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
McCULLUM v. UNITED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,493 F.2d 501(9th Cir. 1974)
KING A. McCULLUM, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. UNITED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
AND HAMILTON TRANSPORT CO., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,
AND
AMERICAN BULK LOADING ENTERPRISES, INC., A CORPORATION, THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 72-1857.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 11, 1974.
Newton R. Brown, Wilmington, Cal. (argued), for plaintiff-appellant.

Kenneth R. Chiate (argued) and Joseph G. Davis, Jr., of Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams Charles, Kirtland Packard, Law Firm, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before WRIGHT, KILKENNY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
[1] OPINION
PER CURIAM:
[2] The admiralty jurisdiction of the district court is in question on this appeal. The plaintiff-appellant was a longshoreman, employed by a stevedore company when he was injured on the pier in the course of unloading the defendant's ship. Due either to a malfunction of a shore-based crane or to its improper operation by a fellow stevedore, a piece of cargo fell from the crane and struck the plaintiff as the crane swung from the ship to the deposit area on the pier.

[3] The plaintiff sued in admiralty, alleging that the defendant was negligent and its ship unseaworthy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff appeals.

[4] Federal admiralty jurisdiction [28 U.S.C. § 1333; 46 U.S.C. § 740] does not extend to injuries to stevedores on the pier caused by faulty or improperly operated pier-based equipment.CompareVictory Carriers, Inc. v. Law,404 U.S. 202, 92 S.Ct. 418, 30 L.Ed.2d 383 (1971); Chagois v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.,457 F.2d 343(5th Cir. 1972);andSnydor v. Villain Fassio, etc.,459 F.2d 365(4th Cir. 1972)withGutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp.,373 U.S. 206, 83 S.Ct. 1185, 10 L.Ed.2d 297 (1963). We conclude, therefore, that plaintiff's complaint did not state aPage 502claim of which the district court had jurisdiction.

[5] The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the cause remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Page 561