Page:Alart Associates v. Aptaker (402 F.2d 779).pdf/1

 There can, of course, be no dispute that, given the appropriate facts, an improper method of handling cargo would render a vessel unseaworthy. But, where as here, the injury occurred when experienced plaintiff failed to use suitable equipment then available, it cannot be held that there was a “method” or “plan” of loading which was improper. Appellant’s reliance on Waldron, supra, is misplaced. There, the assignment of insufficient manual assistance constituted the unseaworthy condition. But here, the record is utterly barren of even a suggestion that too few longshoremen were assigned to stow the bags. The case begins and remains a simple one. Appellant and his co-worker took it upon themselves not to make use of available pallet boards as a platform from which to stow the cargo, and not to utilize the manual assistance of other longshoremen then available.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs and argument, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is affirmed on the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth in that court’s opinion. 268 F.Supp. 932.

Clifton S. Carl, Garrett & Carl, New Orleans, La., for appellants.

Kathleen Ruddell, Asst,. [sic] U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Morton Hollander, Daniel Joseph, Michael C. Farrar, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Louis C. LaCour, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BOOTLE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The appellants, Roosevelt Johnson, [No. 25485], and Anthony Buckner, [No. 25486], brought suit against the appellees under the General Maritime Law, the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. § 781 et seq., and the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 741 et seq. seeking