## Facts

- Felice Napolitano, a longshoreman, brought two separate maritime personal-injury actions against Compania Sud Americana de Vapores (shipowner) for incidents on different vessels.
- Accident 1 (SS *Copiapo*, 1963): Napolitano testified he slipped on a newspaper that concealed spilled oil or grease on the deck while loading cargo, injuring his left shoulder.
- Accident 2 (SS *Maipo*, 1965): Napolitano testified he fell while descending a Jacob’s ladder to a lighter because a rung near the bottom had oil or grease on it, injuring his right shoulder.
- In both actions, Napolitano alleged negligence and unseaworthiness based on slippery conditions from oil or grease.
- The same district judge conducted separate jury trials one week apart; the juries returned verdicts for Napolitano and judgments were entered in his favor.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support jury findings of negligence and/or unseaworthiness and causation where the proof of oil or grease rested largely on plaintiff testimony.
2. Whether Napolitano’s own conduct required a finding that his negligence was the sole cause of the accidents or otherwise defeated liability.
3. Whether the damage awards were so excessive as to warrant appellate relief.
4. Whether, in the first trial, denying a recess that prevented the defense from presenting a medical witness was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal.
5. Whether, in the second trial, excluding late-disclosed defense witnesses and the trial judge’s remarks toward defense counsel deprived the shipowner of a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed both judgments for Napolitano.
- The court held the evidence permitted the juries to find that oily or greasy conditions existed and caused the falls, supporting negligence and/or unseaworthiness.
- The court declined to disturb the juries’ resolution of credibility and conflicting evidence on the presence of oil or grease and on fault allocation.
- The court held the damage awards were not excessive under the governing appellate standard.
- The court found no reversible error in trial management: refusing a recess in the first case and precluding late-disclosed witnesses in the second were within the trial judge’s discretion.
- The court concluded the judge’s critical or sarcastic remarks, viewed in context, did not deny the shipowner a fair trial.

## Legal Principles

- In maritime injury cases, a plaintiff’s credited testimony describing a slip caused by oil or grease on a ship’s deck or equipment can be sufficient for a jury finding of negligence and/or unseaworthiness.
- Appellate review of jury damages is highly deferential; an award is set aside only if it is so excessive as to indicate passion, prejudice, or to “shock the conscience.”
- Trial courts have broad discretion over scheduling and courtroom management; denial of a recess is not reversible absent a clear abuse affecting substantial rights.
- A trial court may exclude witnesses disclosed shortly before trial, particularly in long-pending cases, to prevent unfair surprise and enforce orderly pretrial practice.
- Judicial criticism of counsel does not require reversal unless it likely influenced the jury in a way that rendered the trial unfair.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed two jury verdicts for a longshoreman, holding that the evidence supported findings of negligence/unseaworthiness and causation, the awards were not legally excessive, and the challenged rulings on recess, witness preclusion, and judicial comments did not amount to reversible error.


Napolitano v. Compania Sud Americana de Vapores, 421 F.2d 382 (2d Cir. 1970)