The General De Sonis

Decision Date11 April 1910
Docket Number3,410.
Citation179 F. 123
PartiesTHE GENERAL DE SONIS.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

J. L Waller and Z. B. Rawson, for libelant.

Bogle Hardin & Spooner and Ira A. Campbell, for respondents.

HANFORD District Judge.

The libelant was employed by a firm of stevedores having a contract to discharge the cargo of the ship General De Sonis. At the end of a day's work the men who were doing the work, as employes of said firm, left the ship without having replaced the covers on one of the hatchways, and by direction of their foreman several of the men, including the libelant returned to the ship to close the hatchway, and while performing that service the libelant was precipitated through the hatchway into the hold of the ship and badly injured.

He prosecutes this suit, in rem and in personam, against her master and owner, to recover damages on the alleged ground that the accident happened as a consequence of faulty construction of the frame and covering of the hatchway and carelessness and misconduct on the part of an officer of the ship in jumping upon one section of the hatch covers to force it into position. The owner's claim and a bond for release of the ship having been filed, the claimant and the master jointly answered an amended libel, contesting any liability.

The facts proved are that the coaming of the hatch is 3 feet 4 inches high above the deck, and made of steel a little more than one-third of an inch in thickness, secured to the deck by angle plates fastened to the steel deck and lugs fastened to the deck beams, and reinforced at the top by a half round steel molding. The strong-backs and fore-and-afters, which with the coaming constitute the framework of the hatch, were also made of thin steel. The covering is timber in sections, and made to fit snugly, so as to completely close the opening. Additional means of strengthening the union of parts is provided, consisting of a rod in two parts, joined together by a turn-buckle reaching across the opening, and through the forward and aft coamings, and through the strong-backs. In use when the hatch is closed with the rod in place, the opposite coamings are drawn tight on the fore-and-afters by screwing the turn-buckle. The evidence proves that at the time of opening the hatch, when the rod was removed, the coamings spread half an inch and released the fore-and-afters, so that they were easily removed. The stevedores opened the hatch, and it was their duty to close it. On the occasion referred to, the libelant and his associates had so nearly completed their task that only two sections of the covering timbers remained to be fitted into their places. These seemed to be wider or longer than the space for them, and the men were about to leave the job unfinished, when the second mate of the ship came to their assistance, and an attempt was made to force the covers into position by elevating the overlapping edges and placing them against each other, so as to secure the advantage of a leverage with pressure forcing them down. The rod and turn-buckle had not been placed. The libelant was standing on the hatch with one foot placed to exert pressure downward on one of the sections when the second mate jumped upon the other section, to force it down, with the unexpected result that all, or a considerable part, of the hatch covering, with both men, fell down into the hold of the ship.

The evidence proves that no part of the structure was broken or bent, and all of it was subsequently used without any alteration or repair, and was serviceable as before the happening. Expert witnesses, who have had years of experience in surveying vessels for owners and underwriters, gave testimony approving the construction of the hatch, and according to their statement the ship throughout was constructed and kept in condition to be entitled to the highest rating as a carrier and subject for insurance.

It would appear from their evidence that such an accident could not possibly have happened, and I find that the evidence in its entirety fails to give an intelligent explanation of the occurrence. The hatch covering did collapse, however, and the accident cannot be explained upon any other theory than that, owing to the springiness of the metal in the absence of the rod and turn-buckle, the strong-backs and fore-and-afters must have been displaced by the jar and concussion caused by the efforts of the libelant and the second mate to force the last two sections into position.

The degree of negligence necessary to fasten liability upon either the ship, her master, or owner is that degree which is equivalent to lack of such care and prudence as ordinary men habitually exercise for their own personal safety. This hatchway...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Helton v. United States, Civ. A. No. H 67 C-18.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • April 2, 1969
    ... ... , the circuit court stated that the test is whether a water course is susceptible of use for purposes of commerce and capable of practical general uses. The court of appeals mentioned the trend toward liberality in the treatment of admiralty jurisdiction ...         It was stipulated by ...         It is for the above reasons that this case falls squarely within the language of The General De Sonis, 179 F. 123, 126 (W.D.Wash.1910): ... It is the opinion of the court that * * * the relation of master and servant is suspended when a representative ... ...
  • Usher v. M/V Ocean Wave
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 14, 1994
    ... ...         The words of Section 763a are general. They draw no distinction between suits in personam and in rem: ... Unless otherwise specified by law, a suit for recovery of damages for personal ... 240 (4th Cir.1899); The Christobal Colon, 44 F. 803, 804 (E.D.La.1890); The General De Sonis, 179 F. 123, 126 (W.D.Wash.1910); Gilmore & Black at Sec. 9-20 n. 95, and Gaudet makes clear a claim for loss of consortium due to wrongful death ... ...
  • Hargus v. Ferocious & Impetuous, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands
    • September 30, 2015

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