# Mrs. Maria Toth Futo, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Intervenor-Appellant v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · November 19, 1984 · 742 F.2d 209

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472542

## Case

- **Full name:** Mrs. Maria Toth FUTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Intervenor-Appellant, v. LYKES BROS. STEAMSHIP CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 19, 1984
- **Citations:** 742 F.2d 209; 1985 A.M.C. 1030; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 16606
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Garwood, Politz, Williams, Gar-Wood
- **Cited by:** 56 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472542

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that dangerous condition was not just that scaffold lacked guardrail at some point during stevedoring operations, but that it had no guardrail while employees were using it as a work platform
- holding that shipowner had no duty to intervene "even if it possessed the full measure of actual knowledge required by Helaire [v. Mobil Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1031 (5th Cir. 1983)]”
- declining to adopt an "across-the-board rule that the involvement of a dangerous condition of the ship itself, its gear, or equipment is in all circumstances per se either necessary or sufficient to impose a duty on a shipowner”

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellant moves for rehearing, calling attention to certain testimony, not discussed in our original opinion, which appellant claims demonstrates the existence of a genuine fact issue respecting whether Lykes actually knew Dixie employees were working on this scaffolding, without a safety belt or the like, when it lacked a guardrail. It is not necessary to address this contention, however, for, as plainly stated in our original opinion, under the circumstances here Lykes would have no liability even if it had such actual knowledge. The petition for rehearing is accordingly DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472542. Public record. Not legal advice.