From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lanier v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 18, 1972
459 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 25700.

April 18, 1972.

Alfred G. Johnson (argued) of Sullivan Sullivan, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Jack G. Knebel (argued), Norman B. Richards, of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown Enersen, Lawrence F. Ledebur, Chief, Admiralty Shipping Sect., Dept. of Justice, James L. Browning, Jr., U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before KOELSCH and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and CARR, District Judge.

The Honorable Charles H. Carr, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.


A merchant seaman appeals a summary judgment which held, in effect, that the owner of the ship has no duty to furnish land transportation to members of the crew ashore on liberty in Saigon, Republic of Vietnam.

The plaintiff in this admiralty action was injured when a motor bicycle operated for hire by an enterprising Vietnamese carried him into a collision with another vehicle in Saigon-bound traffic.

The plaintiff asserted that the shipowner was negligent in failing to provide land transportation to convey off-duty sailors from the pier into town, a distance of some two miles. He also alleged that the shipowner was negligent in failing to warn him that the available land transportation was not dependable. An allegation that the vessel was unseaworthy because of a failure to supply safe land transportation was included in the record on appeal, but abandoned on oral argument.

The ship was berthed at a United States port facility serving Saigon. The record indicates that taxis served the area but none was immediately available to the plaintiff at the time he decided to go into town.

The trial court granted summary judgment, on the ground that the shipowner's duty to his crew does not yet require the vessel to provide land transportation for recreational purposes. We agree.

The plaintiff's reliance on Williamson v. Western Pacific Dredging Corp., 441 F.2d 65 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 851, 92 S.Ct. 90, 30 L.Ed.2d 91 (1971), is misplaced. Williamson was required by the terms of his employment to engage in the travel during the course of which he was injured. Lanier was neither required to travel nor limited by the shipowner in his choice of direction or mode of travel once he was ashore.

There was no evidence of any fact that would impose upon the master of the vessel a duty to evaluate local land transportation and issue warnings to seamen who might wish to visit Saigon.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Lanier v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 18, 1972
459 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

Lanier v. United States

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS R. LANIER, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 18, 1972

Citations

459 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Callbreath v. U.S.

Here, even construing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to Callbreath, he cannot prove that the…