# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — American Stevedores, Inc. v. United States (No. 214) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386420_0465%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1960 ## Text JAMB2 R Br, IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM 1900 ae AD AMERICAN STEVr DORES, INU, Petitioner, against UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et af Respondents. . 4 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO FHE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT WITH APPENDIX Bern Brop Counsel for Petitioner tM) East 42nd Street, New York, NO Y¥ Ee ee ew. INDEX Opinions of the Courts Below DN a Ree ak a Bat aS here ohn 2 2:0: 8 See 2 + Ah ee 4 Oo aud Reasons for Granting Writ Summary of Argument... Point I—The maintenance of the winch was the obli- gation of the shipowner, The notice of a condi- tion of danger caused by the winch, which notes the Court of Appeals has attributed to the peti- tioner, has led to the imposition of an obligatiin on petitioner to whic!: it neither expressly nor 5, 5 SE Es eee coe wd nan in oes Point 11—The decision of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with that of the Court of Appeals four the EF Pee Vota Keke Pornt 11]—The judginent appealed from, relieving from liability the wrongdoer whose negligence eaused a dangerous condition and transferring that liability, to-one who knew or should have known of the former's dereliction is inequitable and contrary to the maritime and civil poliey of WE IG 6 occ i pte id sdccnspueedesaver tres TasB.Le or Cases Citep Bosso vy. Inland Waterways Corporation, 349 U. : Calderola v. € unard Steamship Company, Court S. SO Appeals, 2d Circuit, decided May 51, 1960 2... Crumady v. J. H. Fisser, 358 U.S. 423 ..........; * 6 S49 ul ; | INDEX PAGE Ryan Stevedoring Co., Int. v. Pan Atlantic Steam: * ship Corporation, 850 U.S. 124 0... ee eee eee 0 United States vy. Arrow Stevedoring, 175 F. 2d 329 (cert. denied) 338 U.S. 904 ...--65-- 554s e eee i ‘ United States v. Harrison, 245 F. 2d 911 ie iy ithe 5, 6, 7,9 Weyerhauser Steamship v. Nacirema, 359 U.S. 563 . . 5 Statutes CIrep Rule 19(b) of U.S. Supreme Court Rules .......--- 3 O8 U.S.C. Sections 125414) and 2101(¢) ......-+-- ak oe INDEX TO APPENDIX Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of District Court ... 66... e ee: tiaba take a eidm es wade 6 we! 10 Opinion of United States Court of Appeals ......--- 16 ~ Judgment Appealed From ......--.++++s+++200008: ai Excerpts From Contract Between United States and American Stevedoring Company Ine. ....+-.--. oe Excerpts From Transcript of Testimony of the Dis- ~ trict Court: . . Charles Barnes Deitch (For Respondent) : OP ote SRE OUT CELE LE Coe 23 POA cs canes ev anees Srp Are ere 24 Karl H. Nehring (For Respondent) : Divect .....-.55. fi RE ee Ye ae 26 IN THE | Supreme Court uf the nited States. OCTOBER TERM, 1960 >* AMERICAN StevEpores, Lnc.,” Petitioner, — against Unirep States or America, et al., ‘Respondents. > § PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE - SECOND .CIRCUIT WITH APPENDIX. Petitioner, American Stevedores, Inc., prays that a writ ‘of certiorari issue to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, entered. ‘in the above entitled case on April 5, 1960, cs Opinions of the Courts Below By Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated “March 13, 1959, the Honorable Joseph C. Zavatt of the United States Distriet Court, Eastern District of New York, awarded damages to the libelant against the respondent 9 ‘ . . and found in faver of the respondent on its impleading petition against the impleaded respondent. This decision was not officially reported, but was unollicially reported at’ 1959 AM.U. TS08 and is reprinted at.page la of the Appen- dix to this petition.” On an appeal by petitioner herein the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Distriet Court. — The opinion-of the Court of Appeals is reported:in 204 EF. 2d 2d: it ds reprinted at page 16 of the Appendix te ‘iis petition, Jurisdiction Judgment was entered in the Court of Appeals for the Second. Cireuit on April 5, 1960 ¢p. 21, Appendix). Jurisdiction to review the judgment by -writ ‘of eertt- orari is found in 28 U.S.C. Section 1254, subdivision T, anil 101¢e), as well as in Rule 19b of the rules of this Court under this Court's power of supervision: over the Federal Judicial System, and more particularly on the grounds siat the Court of Appeals for the Second Cireuit has ren- dered a decision in conthet with the decisions of this Court ‘ind of other Courts ef Appeal. ; Questions Presented for Review 1 Whether a stevedore must respond in indemnity to a shipowner for a loss sustained by reason of the ship- owner's negligence in the maintenance of a winch, result- ing in a condition of danger, which condition, according to the District Court and the Court of Appeals existed long enough te ereate a superseding duty ‘on the part of the stevedore to remove or correct. 2. Whether such a superseding duty, imposing a legal eobligation to indemnify arises where the obligation to 3 maintain the winch was solely that of the shipowner and the only negligence attributed to the stevedore was con- structive knowledge of the shipowner’s breach. Statement*of the Case Libelant, a longshoreman employed by’ the petitioner Was injured -on «July 6, 1955 while working aboard the USNS Henry Gibbons moored at Pier 4, Brooklyn Army Base, New York. Libelant slipped on oil whichehad rin from a winch across the deck to the rail at the No. 2 hateh. On two prior oceasions within a short period prior to the _ accident he had walked over the same streak of oil. Just before the accident he had passed a ship's officer who was proceeding from the direction of that hatch. One other Jongshoreman had seen the ail but neither made any com- plaint to anyone about it. The petitioner's hatch boss had worked all day iw and] out of the hatch and had not noticed oil. After the acei- dent, he observed that thére was oil which apparently had leaked from the winch. The ship’s log showed a dekeciccaned winch. The ship's captain found sawdust under the winch which had been placed there by the crew. It was the obligation of ‘the ~erew to place sawdust on oil and remove it from the deck, The Maritime Superintendent for the United States Army was in charge of the discharge of cargo in behalf of the United States Army. It would have been his obliga tion to report a leaking winch te the ship's officer. ‘Reasons for Granting Writ Summary of Argument ~The contractual obligation to vroperfy maintain the winch was that of the vessel. That obligation could not be shifted to a stevedote by implied contract. Notice to a 4 jongshoreman of a dangerous condition arising out of a vesse]-owner’s breach of its obligation is not such as would create a superseding duty on ‘the part of the stevedore to correct the condition. . The duty of workmanlike performance of the stevedoring . +: ° , .1° . . work does -not include the assumption of © ligations im- posed upon the shipowner. The contract between the paxgties requires indemnity only where the stevedore’s negligence arises out of the. manner in which the stevedoring work wes performed, not for a failure to assume the duties placed upon the ship-* owner, POINT | The maintenance of the winch was the obligation of the shipowner. The notice of a condition of danger caused by the winch, which notice the Court of Ap- . peals has attributed to the petitioner, has led to the imposition of an obligation on petitioner to which it neither expressly nor impliedly agreed. —_, By contract, the shipowner agreed to furnish and — properly maintain the winch, The petitioner agreed to perform its stevedoring work in a safe and workmanlike mannef. Each party to the contract had specific and well defined obligations. Because of the length of time that a winch continued-to leak oil, although that would seem to emphasize the breach of obligation on the part-of the shipowner, the Court of Appeals on the hasis of that perio of time has shifted the ship's responsibility to the peti- tioner. . ; . : : This holding relieves the ship of the continuous duty of keeping her seaworthy. This is not the situation where the unseaworthiness is caused by the stevedore himself ‘and the ship is held to absolute liability-as a result. The 4 vu decision in the case at bar has placed a premium upon the negligence of the vessel and its crew which caused the unseaworthy condition. Veiled States v. Harrison, 245 Fed. 2nd 911. ‘The shipowner, in the. Court of Appeals, relied upon Ryan Stevedoring v. Pan Atlantic Steamship Corp., 350 ULS. 124; Weyerhauser Steamship vy. Nacirema Operating Co. Ine., 355 U.S. 563 and Crumady v. The-J: H. Fisser, 308 U.S. 423. We submit that these cases, rather than assisting the shipowner’s position, prove the contrary. In the Ryan case a stevedore was held to impliedly watr- rant a proper and safe performance of, the stevedoring work. There it was the shipowner who had failed to dis- cover the contractor’s breach and the contractor. was held liable in indemnity for a loss which was caused by the stevedore’s improper handkng of cargo. Inthe case at bar the maintenance of the winch and the correction of.any condition of danger caused by the winch were obligations of the shipowner. There is no suggestion in the Weyerhauser case to the contrary for there, too the stevedore had created the con- dition Which caused the accident. The decision. restated © the doctrine that a stevedore would be held liable for a substandard performance under such circumstances unless there was conduct on the part of the vessel sufficient to preclude recovery for indemnity. No definition of that. conduct was given but we suggest ‘suc ch conduct is pyesent here. ; In the Crumady case, it was held that although the cut- off device of the ship’s winch was improperly set, it was the manner. in which the stevedore operated the winch which brought into play the unseaworthy condition which led to the loss for which the ship was held entitled to in- demnity. 6 ‘ The petitioner in the instant case neither created the dangereus condition nor did it by its neghgenee bring inte existence ans unseaworthy condition. Its only fault wes imputed knowledge of the shipowner’ = breach of the won tract, Which breach the Court of Appeals as erroneousty condoned hy shifting liability to the petitioner, t POINT Il The decision of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with that of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The holding is squarely in conflict with United States v. Harrison, 245 Peds 2d SFL (Ninth © ireuit), which not only involved the identical Army contract but also -was concerned with a set of facets strikingly similar to. those in‘ the ease at bar. ins In United States v. Harrison, supra, a longehoreusn fell - on an oily deek which had not been covered with sand. The Court held that the. covering of the oil with sand or saw: dust was the obligation of the ship and its crew and not the stevedore’s responsibility. The Court said at page 91): Any attempt to require the Stevedoring Company to he'd the government harmless under circumstances found in this case, by stipulations of a contract or otherwise, would be void. The anseaworthiness of this vessel created a non-delegable duty upon the agents of the government to render her seaworthy immed? ately, The defect was not latent, but was patent ty everyone who saw the deck, If the defeetive eondi- tion had heen concealed and the Stevedoring Com- pany had heen the first to discover it, then a burden might have been placed upon the latter under the contract. But the duty to keep the ship seaworthy, where the conditions are open and notorious to all who looked, is not only nondelegable, but continuous upon the shipowner, master and crew." + There, as here, the shipowner argued that the provisions ef the contract in the exact wording found in paves 13 to 14 of the Appendix should hold the stevedere because it, through the exereise of due diligence, could’ otherwise have avoided such damage or injurv. The Ninth Cireuit rejected this contention, pointing out that the stevedore had not ereated. the condition and its. im. puted knowledge of the dereliction by the ship did not eon. stitute the active negligence found on the part of the steve- dore in United States vo Arrow Stevedoring, WA ked. 2d 829, vert. denied 338 U.S. 404 where indemnity had been allowed. | . The contention that the stevedore could have avoided damage rejected in United States +. Harrison Was the sole basis for the Court of Appeals holding petitioner liable for indemnity in the. instant. case, Actually the ‘facets are stronger in favor of the stevedore here, beeause in this case the oil came from a winch, the maintainence of which “Was exclusively that of the shipowner, whereas ‘in Harrison the oil dropped from the jeeps which constituted the earge being loaded by the stevedore. The cargo handling created the condition there: here the ship’s machinery’ created the condition. The language of the eontract (p. E2 of the Appendis i obviously refers to-a condition which the stevedore, hy his own act has created or which has brought- into plas an unseaworthy condition either of which would not have ‘resulted had ‘the stevedore’s work been properly per. formed. Nothing in this language suggests that actual or eon. structive notice of a shipowner’s default in) the per: formance of its obligation requires the stevedore to as sume that obligation whieh was foreign to its contract «and 8 specifically that of the vessel. Such'is the rationale of the decision by the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Cireuit and, we submit, the proper holding. . The miseonception by the Court of Appeals in the case at bar of the obligation imposed upon the petitioner herein is emphasized by a subsequent, irreconcilable holding by the * same Court, Calderola v. The Cunard Steamship Company, decided May 31, 1960 (slip sheet p. 1885) in which it was held that the plaintiff's knowledge of grease on a ladder was not -binding upon his employer and indemnity was disal- lowed. Although rejected by the Court, there, was evidence that the cargo fall while being used by the longshoreman may have caused the step to become slippery. Alleging igeonsistency with the Santomarco holding, the Cunard Steamship Company has served a petition for rehearing therein. POINT III The judgment appealed from, relieving from lia- bility the wrongdoer whose negligence caused a danger- ous condition and transferring that liability to one ‘who knew or should have known of the former's dereliction is inequitable and contrary to the maritime -and civil policy of this Court. A denial of a writ of certiorari would leave standing a decision holding a stevedore liable for knowledge im- puted to him of a dangerous condition caused by negli- gence of the vessel in the maintenance of its winches. Such is not the state of the law and if a contract purport to provide for the escape from liability of the wrongdoer at the expense of one who at best should have known at the other's derelietion,-such contract would be void as a matter of public poliey. . We refer the Court to its decision in Bosso vy. Inland Waterways Corporation, 349 U.S. 85, where a contract was ‘construed which purported to exempt from all lia- 9 i bility for negikence. That provision was held to. be invalid. The same policy considerations set forth therein would appear to disapprove of any rule of law which would permit the negligent shipowner from transferring its obligation to the stevedore. Although the Bosso ease was not cited by the Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Harrison. supra, the same principle was applied in declaring the contract void. , The judgment appealed from, if allowed to stand would constitute authority for a stevedore being held liable for any condition of danger aboard a vessel as long as that condition existed for an appreciable period of time. Such a result, we submit, would not he -predicated upon a true evaluation of the law as it now exists. To preserve uniformity of standards of review, to af. ford petitioner its only opportunity for review’ of «a judgment against it, it is respectfully requested that the petition be granted and having been granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and of the District Court be reversed and the impleading’ petition of the United States of America against American Steve- dores, Ine. be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, Bern Bupp, Counsel for Petitioner. 10 APPENDIX TO PETITION. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of District Court. (469] The above entitled cause came on regularly for trial and the cotrt having duly considered the evidence and being fully advised in the premises now finds the following: , Findinas of Fact 1. On Julv 6, 1999 the libelant, Thomas Santomareo, was in the employ of American Stevedores, Inc., Cherein- after referred to As American), the respondent-impleaded, The libelant was a longshoreman. He was engaged that dav in the course of his employment as ea hela operator in connection with the loading of the U. . Henry Gib- hins, a vessel owned and operated by ei T nited States, the respondent herein, (470) 2. Prior to 4:30 P.M. the libelant worked at hateh number 4 of the vessel. At abeut that time he and his eang Were shifted forward. to work at haich tumber I, I) watkine forward on the starboard side of the vessed, the libelant passed at one point between the starhoard wineh for the number 2 hatch and the pontoons used. to cover hatch “miumber 2 which were stacked inboard the starboard rail of the vessel. At this point he saw what the court finds to bea slick of oil approximately six inches Wide extending from the winch, across the deck. and ‘thence under the pontoons toward the starboard rail A number of persons had) walked) through the slick sind there were oily tracks on. the deck on either side of the slick, 8 ‘The libelant walked safely through this area to his, place of work at hateh yumber 1, At some time prior ll Appendix to Petition. te 6:00 P.M. the jibelant felt in need of a drink of wa- ter. Knowing that there was water in. the Vicinity of hateh number 4, he proceeded aft on the starboard side of the vessel, and again passed safely through the oil slick and tracks in the vicinity of the starboard winch of hateh ~ number 2 4. Having refreshed himself, and Carrving a container of water for a co-worker, the libelant at about 6:00 P.M, "proceeded forward again along the path which he had twice previously travelled: This time, in attempting to [471] pick his way through the slick and the oily tracks, he slipped on the oil on the deck fell, and struck his head and left hip on either the wineh or the deck. . s 9d. The oil on.the deck was seen by the witness D’ Ambra, ‘a longshoreman employed* by American aboard the ves- sel on July 6, 1955, at the time of the accident, and earlier thateday. He made no report as to the presence of the oil, The same oi] was seen by the witness Braeco, Ameri- can’s hatch boss at hatch number 2, at the time of the ae- cident. Prior to that time no one had reported the pres ence of oil to him. Had anyone done so he would have reported the matter to one of the ship's officers and sus- pended work in the vicinity until the oil was removed. 6. It was the duty of every member of the ship's crew to ifmmediately place sawdust ie any oil observed on the ship’s deck. It was the duty of American's employees to keep the areas in which they worked in a clean and safe condition. With regard te the condition existing here, it was the duty of American’s employees who were aware of the presence of the oi! to cover it: prior toccon- tinuing work, or to notify a stevedore foreman or hate! hoss, who would then have the duty, prior to permitting work to continue, of either removing the dangerous con- Appendis to Petition, dition or reporting the presence e of the oil to the ship's officers, 7. Fhe oil which caused the libetant’s fall [472] re-. ‘mained in a conspicuous and well traveledsarea of the deck for a period of at least one and one-half hours prier to the accident. s. The court finds that the libelant and D’Ambra, as well as other employees of American working aboard the vessel, knew of the presence of the oil a sufficient: time hefore the accident’ to have been able to take steps to prevent its OCCUPrENce, 9, The ship was being loaded in’ preparation for a voyage. © There was a crew aboard, including an oiler, whose sole job it was to care for the winches. The ofti- cers Of the vessel were in control thereof at all times prior to the accident. 10. Neither Ameriean’s employees nor the ship's per sonnel took any steps whatever to report, or to alleviate, the danger caused by the presence of the oil on the deck, 11. The evidence is insufficient to enable the court’ to raake a finding as to the cause of the oil on the deck. In view of the eonciusion, trfra, that. the libelant) was con tributoriiy negligent in proceeding through an’ area of known danger without reperting or acting to remove the oil from the deck, the court makes no finding’ on the con flicting evidence ‘as to whether the fibelant may have chosen a safer route on the port side of the versel to ac complish his mission, [473] 12. "Ara result of the inetd the libelant sul- fered a cerebral concussion, contus ion of the occipital re 13 aAppe ndixv tu Petition. goon of the scalp. and contusion and sprain oof the left lower back and left hip. His medical expenses occasioned by these injuries amounted te- $382.35. He could. pot work for a-period of seven months following the acci dent, and could at no time after the accident work at his usual employment as a tongshoreman heeause of a recurring dizziness which he suffers upon changing pe- sition. The libelant retired from work perianenthy: in the summer of 1957 beeause of his age. The court. finds that the libelant lost earnings of $4,800 as a result of the accident, and that in the absence of contributory mesti gence the libelant would be entitled to recover $1,000 for the pain and suffering occasioned by his injuries. 13. The contract between the respondent and American under which American performed the stevedoring serv. ices on the day in question provided as follows: a . . . - ‘ “Chavse 12. Liability and Insurance. a. The Contractor (2) shall be responsiblé for and shall hold the Government .harmless from any and all loss, dam age, liability and expense for ** ° bodily injury te or death of persons occasioned either in whole or in part bio the neg ivonce or fault of the contractor, (474) his officers, arents, or employees in the performance of work under this contract. ‘The general liability and re sponsibility of the Contractor under this clause are subjcet only to the following specific limrtations. hb. The Contractor shall not be responsible to the Government for and does not agree to hold the the Government harmless from Joss or damage te property or bedily injury to or death of persons: 14 Appendix to Petition. (1) If the unseaworthiness of the vessel or fail- ure or defeet of the geas or equipment furnished hy the Goverriment contributed jointly with the fault or negligence of the Contractor Im eausing such damage, injury or death, and the Contractor, its officers, agents, and emplovees, by the exercise of due Ailigence, could not have discovered such unseaworthiness or detect of gear or equipment or through the exercise of due diligenee could -not otherwise have avoided such damage, injury, or, death. (2) Tf the damge, injury or death resulted solely fromoan act or omission of the Government or its emplovees or resulted, solely from = proper compli. ance by officers, agents, or employees of the Con- tractor with specific directions of the Contracting Officer.”* | ) Conclusions of Lau 1. The oil uport whieh the libelant slipped was an ua seaworthy condition and its presence constituted a breact of the respondent's absolute and rion-delegable obliga tion to provide the libelant, with a seaworthy vessel upon which to perform his work, 475) 2. The long-standing and conspicuous nature ef the dangerous conditron existing herein are deemed sufficient to charge the respondent's officers and employees with: knowledge of its presence, The court concludes, on thi- basis, that the respondent was negligent in failing to cover or otherwise remove the oil from the deck. 3. The libelant was negligent in failing te report the presence of. the oil, in failing to cover or otherwise re ; ; te - Appendiu to Petition. move the oil on each of the three occasions on whieh he - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. | This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of ree- ord from the United States Distriet Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was argued by counsel, ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, . adjudged, and decreed that the decree of said District Court bé and it hereby is ailirmed: with costs to the re- spondent-appellant (United States). A. Dasiet Fusaro, SS s,s oy) App ndix tu Petition. Excerpts From Contract Between United States and American Stevedoring Company Inc. h. Gear Supplied by Government. The Government (at its own expense) shall furnish and snaintain in good work- ing order the, followings blocks on booms, booms, cranes, wire and/or rope falls rigged, gantlines rigged on booms, hatch tents, lighters and floating derricks, lights on wharves and vessels, pallet boards, power dnd steam necessary, preventors on booms, winches. Floating derric ‘ks’ and dock cranes will not be used whea, in the opinion of the Con- tracting Officer, the ship's equipment can be used satis- factorily. , Chause 12. Liability and Insurance.. a. The Contractor. * . * . © . (2) shall be responsible for and shall hold the Govern- ment harmless for any and all loss, damage, liability and expense for * * *- bodily injury to or death of persons oceasioned either in whole-or in part by the neghgence or fault of the contractor, [474] his officers, agents, or em- plovees in the performance of work under this contract. ‘The general liability and responsibility of the Contractor under this clause are subject only to the following specific “limitations. bh. The Contractor shall net be responsible to the Gov- ernment for And does not agree to’ hold the Government harmless from loss or damage to property er bodily injury to or death of persons: (1) If the unseaworthiness of the vessel or failure or defect of the gear or equipment furnished by the Govern- ment’ contributed jointly with the fault or negligence of the Contractor in causing such damage, injury or death, ——— ee e 23 Appendix to Petition. and the Contractor, its officers, agents. and.emplovees, by the exercise of due dilizence, could not have discovered such unseaworthiness or defect .of fear or equipment or through the exercise of due diligence could not otherwise have avoided such damage, injury, or death. (2) If the damages injury or death resulted solely from an act or omission of the Government or its emplovees or resulted solely from proper compliance by officers, agents, or employees of the Contractor with specific directions of the Contracting ¢ ‘Mag. wi Excerpts Prom Transcript of Testimony of the District Court. Cartes Barxes Derren, called as a Witness on behalf of ‘the respondent, having been first duly “sworn, testified > * ™ as follows: Dicect Examination by Mr. Wilson: Q. What do you do for a living, Mr. Deiteh! A. Marine superintendent for the U.S. Army. Q. Where do you work? "[ 182) 4. Brookivm Army Ter- mninal, Brooklyn. Ssth Street. Q. How long have you worked there, sir?) A. It will be eighteen vears in Mareh, Q. What does vour werk invelve? ust What de vou de? ‘A. 1 superintend the loading, discharzing. embarkation of passengers, debarking of passengers, general pler werk, Q. What, if any, relation de you have with the steve- dering people who Joad and discharze the Government Vessels?) AL TL superintend the operation for the Army. YW. How long have vou been at the Army Base doing that? A. The Brookivn A rv Ferninal? 2+ Appendix to Petition. Q. Yes, sir. A. Well, I was .connected with them in Staten Island, it is alt one branch, since 1941, with over- séas duty— QQ. Excuse me? A. With some overseas duty. Q. Where were you working in July, 1955? Do you remember? A. Pier 4. (). Where is that?) A. Brooklyn Army Terminal. " {183} Q. Do you remember whether or not that work involved the U. S. N. S. Henry Gibbins during July, 19552 A. Yes, it did. : Cross Examination (continued) by Mr. Commette: (). Mr. Witness, you said that you, as a representative of the Army, superintended the operation of ¢he steve- doring? Is that correet? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, would you please tell the Court in a little more detail what you mean by superintending the opera- tion of the stevedores for the Army?