Holley v. The Manfred Stansfield, 7802.
| Decision Date | 25 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 7802.,7802. |
| Citation | 165 F. Supp. 660 |
| Parties | Ruth HOLLEY, Administratrix of the Estate of Edward J. Holley, deceased, Libellant, v. Steamship THE MANFRED STANSFIELD, her engines, boilers, etc., in rem and Reederei Blumenfeld, G.M. B.H., in personam, Respondents. REEDEREI BLUMENFELD, G.M.B.H., Petitioner, v. Joseph C. JETT, Respondent-Impleaded. Joseph C. JETT and Reederei Blumenfeld, G.M.B.H., Petitioners, v. ELIZABETH RIVER TERMINALS, INC., Respondent-Impleaded. ELIZABETH RIVER TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, v. F. S. ROYSTER GUANO COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Impleaded. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Louis B. Fine and Howard Legum, Norfolk, Va., for Libellant.
Walter B. Martin, Jr., Norfolk, Va., for the Manfred Stansfield and Reederei Blumenfeld, G.M.B.H.
R. Arthur Jett and Roy L. Sykes, Norfolk, Va., for Joseph C. Jett.
Jack E. Greer, Norfolk, Va., for Elizabeth River Terminals.
L. S. Parsons and George P. Hylton, Jr., Norfolk, Va., for Royster Guano.
Libellant's decedent, a longshoreman employed by Elizabeth River Terminals, Inc., died as a result of injuries sustained on September 17, 1956, in the No. 2 hold of the S. S. Manfred Stansfield, a German vessel owned by Reederei Blumenfeld, G.M.B.H., and chartered to Joseph C. Jett, when a large block of solidified muriated potash fell upon decedent while he was operating a "payloader" in the hold. The amended libel filed against the vessel and its owners alleges negligence in failing to furnish decedent with a safe place in which to work, as well as unseaworthiness of the vessel. By virtue of the provisions of the Virginia Death by Wrongful Act statute, § 8-633, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, a recovery to the extent limited therein is sought. The respondent-owner impleaded Joseph C. Jett, the charterer, who, in turn, impleaded Elizabeth River Terminals, Inc., the stevedore whose services were engaged in unloading the vessel at South Norfolk and for whom the decedent was working at the time of the accident. The respondent-owner thereafter impleaded the stevedore upon the theory of implied contract. The stevedore, Elizabeth River Terminals, Inc., impleaded F. S. Royster Guano Company, Inc., at whose place of business in Baltimore, Maryland, approximately one-half of the cargo had previously been unloaded a few days prior to the accident, and who allegedly failed to provide for the trimming of the cargo prior to the vessel's leaving Baltimore for Norfolk. Holding that no contractual relationship existed between the stevedore and Royster, the action for indemnity over against Royster was dismissed at the conclusion of the evidence.
The vessel was loaded with potash and the cargo trimmed at Hamburg, Germany. The cargo thereafter belonged to the charterer, Jett. By arrangement with Royster, the ship docked at Royster's Baltimore dock on September 6, 1956; the cargo having been sold by Jett to Royster "alongside the dock". Royster thereupon employed Rucker Terminals, an experienced stevedore in Baltimore, to unload its portion of the cargo. By reason of the hydroscopic nature of the cargo, the potash settled during the voyage, thus forming a mass which in places was exceedingly hard and resembled concrete. The evidence discloses that differences of opinion exist with respect to the safest and best methods used in the trade to unload a cargo of partially solidified muriated potash. Some stevedores use dynamite, while others employ air hammers, picks and shovels for the purpose of loosening the cargo and loading the grab of the crane. Either method apparently is accepted, although there is some feeling that dynamite may endanger the safety of the ship. When the cargo is substantially removed from the square of the hatch, a device known as a "payloader" is lowered into the hold to collect the loose material and load into the clam shell or grab. The "payloader" is a small bulldozer with a scoop in front and it is frequently used by operators to assist in breaking the solid mass, although such practice is frowned upon by experienced stevedores because of the dangers incident thereto when an "overhang" is formed.
At Baltimore there was no consideration given to the use of dynamite and the testimony reflects that an explosive of this type is never used at that port unless the hold is rendered too dangerous to enter by the longshoremen. The method of unloading employed at this first port of call consisted of the use of a crane with a grab similar to a clam shell. To break up the cargo the longshoremen used air hammers, picks and shovels. A portion of the cargo was removed from each of the holds and it is reasonable to assume that the greater part thereof was taken from the square of the hatches. According to a witness from Rucker Terminal, the No. 2 hold had been dug a depth of 12 feet and approximately 6 feet in the wings, leaving the remaining cargo on an estimated 30 degree incline. This witness testified that the stevedore never trimmed the cargo unless directed to do so by the master or first officer, except for the purpose of loading other cargo on the top thereof. No other cargo was loaded at Baltimore and there is no evidence indicating that Rucker was instructed to trim the same.
Following unloading operations in Baltimore, the vessel proceeded to South Norfolk, Virginia, where she arrived and commenced unloading the balance of her cargo on September 13, 1956. Upon arrival it was noted that the potash had been substantially removed from the square of the No. 2 hatch, but there remained a large quantity fore and aft the square of the hatch, as well as in the wings where the potash was from 12 to 20 feet in height. Recognizing the difficulties to be encountered in removing the cargo, the stevedore's superintendent requested permission of the master and first officer to use small charges of dynamite but this request was denied. Thereupon the stevedore used the same methods employed at Baltimore, aided by the use of "payloaders" as the cargo had been sufficiently removed from the floor of the vessel to enable the equipment to operate. The No. 2 and No. 3 hatches may be considered as one, being separated only by a center line...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Isbrandtsen Company
...S. A. v. Pitsillos, 279 F.2d 599 (4 Cir. 1960); Grzybowski v. Arrow Barge Co., 283 F.2d 481 (4 Cir. 1960). 16 Holley v. The Manfred Stansfield, 165 F.Supp. 660 (D.C.E.D.Va.1958). 17 Holley v. The Manfred Stansfield, 186 F.Supp. 212 18 Knox v. United States Lines Co., 201 F.Supp. 131 (E.D.Pa......
-
Holmes v. Mississippi Shipping Company
...before this Court at which time the libel was dismissed for reasons fully stated in an opinion reported in Holley v. The Manfred Stansfield, D.C.E.D.Va., 165 F.Supp. 660. On appeal, following the later decision in The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U.S. 588, 79 S.Ct. 503, 3 L.Ed.2d 524, the Unite......
-
Holley v. The Manfred Stansfield
...before this Court at which time the libel was dismissed for reasons fully stated in an opinion reported in Holley v. The Manfred Stansfield, D.C.E.D.Va., 165 F.Supp. 660. On appeal, following the later decision in The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U.S. 588, 79 S.Ct. 503, 3 L.Ed.2d 524, the Unite......
- Stancil v. United States