The Lyndhurst

Decision Date31 December 1906
Citation149 F. 900
PartiesTHE LYNDHURST.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Abbott & Coyne, for libelant.

Convers & Kirlin, for claimant.

THOMAS District Judge.

The libelant was a sailor on the Lyndhurst. She had been inspected and overhauled at Wilmington and Philadelphia, and received A1 Lloyds approval before sailing; but when 50 days out, on a voyage to China, the runner passing through the eye of the rope, whereby the mizzen topgallant yard is hauled up broke while the sail was being raised, and the block fell hitting the libelant on the femur, just above the knee breaking his leg. For this the libel is filed. The captain did not think libelant's leg was broken, and did not treat him for it, but did the best he could for him, and treated him with all consideration. The bone united; but, the fracture being oblique, the ends overrode each other somewhat, so that his leg is shortened an inch and a half or two inches. He undoubtedly suffered much pain.

The examination at the instance of the Lloyds related to exterior observation of the rigging, and did not otherwise tend to test the breaking strength of the runner. The evidence does not show how such ascertainment could have been made. After the voyage began, the runner, in connection with other similar parts, was under observation by the chief officer. He testified that it was apparently in good condition, that he examined the place where the runner broke after the accident that it was a clean break, and that the ends were bright and free from rust. Reynolds, boatswain's mate of the Lyndhurst, states that he often had to do with the runner; that it was rusted before the accident, and was in unfit condition on account of appearance of rust; that he reported it before the accident to the chief officer. The chief officer denies such statement. The ship had been in service since 1886, and there is no evidence that there had been renewal of the runner during that time, or that its breaking strength had been tested. However, the runner was of the best make, and the fact of such long service is not inconsistent with its proper usefulness and strength. The claimant ascribes the weakening to such an extent that it broke to the unusual strain put upon it by bad weather shortly before the accident, but asserts that, in the absence of bad condition appearing outwardly, the fact of such strain could not be determined.

Did the runner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Mahnich v. Southern Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1944
    ... ... The Noddleburn, D.C., 28 F. 855, affirmed 30 F. 142; The Neptuno, D.C., 30 F. 925; The Frank and Willie, D.C., 45 F. 494; The Julia Fowler, D.C., 49 F. 277; Wm. Johnson & Co. v. Johansen, 5 Cir., 86 F. 886; and see The Columbia, D.C., 124 F. 745; The Lyndhurst, D.C., 149 F. 900. But later cases in this and other federal courts have followed the ruling of the Osceola, supra, that the exercise of due diligence does not relieve the owner of his obligation to the seaman to furnish adequate appliances. 2 Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, supra, 259 U.S. at ... ...
  • Proctor v. Dillon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1920
    ... ... seaman. This statement is supported by ample citation of ... authorities. Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U.S. 626, ... 629. The France, 8 C.C.A. 185. Cothell v. Lamb, 10 C. C. A ... 634. The Henry B. Fiske, 141 F. 188, 190. The Lyndhurst, 149 ... F. 900. Couch v. Steel, 3 El. & Bl. 402, 407. Smith v ... Cook, 164 F. 628. The owners of the ship owed the duty to the ... plaintiff "to supply and keep in order the proper ... appliances appurtenant to the ship." The Osceola, 189 ... U.S. at page 175. Negligence simply consists in ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT