Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
John E. Honchorck, Appellant, v. Dravo Corporation
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 372 F.2d 92
Argued Dec. 5, 1966.Decided Jan. 5, 1967
Cosmos J. Reale, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Bruce R. Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
This libel was tried on the theory that libellant was injured as a result of the negligent revving of the engines on respondent's vessel. Libellant maintains that he was beaching his motorboat when respondent's vessel, the 'Freedom,' accelerated its engines causing waves or swells which, in turn, caused his small craft to pitch and strike him on the side of his face. The district court, as the trier of fact, found the testimony of the sole liability witness, libellant's son, to be incredible and entered judgment for the respondent on the grounds that libellant had failed to establish the cause of the accident. Issues of credibility are for the fact finder; such findings are not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Cf., M. W. Zack Metal Co. v. S.S. Birmingham City, 311 F.2d 334 (C.A.2, 1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 816, 84 S.Ct. 50, 11 L.Ed.2d 51 (1963). Our review of the record discloses nothing which would support a clearly-erroneous finding.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.