The Passaic

Citation190 F. 644
PartiesTHE PASSAIC.
Decision Date03 August 1911
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)

Wilcox & Green (Stetson, Jennings & Russell, of counsel), for petitioner.

Roy Watson & Naumer (Robert H. Roy, of counsel), for claimant.

CHATFIELD District Judge.

This is a proceeding on the part of the owners of the ferryboat Passaic to limit their liability under section 4283, R.S (U.S. comp. St. 1901, p. 2943), for claims existing against the ferryboat prior to the 26th day of April, 1910, on which their petition was filed. A sale of the boat was had and the proceeds deposited. But one claimant has filed a claim. This claimant is the personal representative of one Wilson, who was almost instantly killed upon the morning of October 20 1908, by the escape of steam into the fireroom of the Passaic, just after she had left her slip on the Jersey side and was straightening into her course across the Hudson river. She was then within the state of New York, and such a claim would arise under section 1902 of the Code of New York. But this statute has been superseded and a broader right in interstate matters has been given by the Act of April 22 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1171), as amended by the Law of April 5, 1910, c. 143, 36 Stat. 291. Fulgham v. Midland Valley R. Co. (C.C.) 167 F. 660. The statute allowing the limitation of liability is hence applicable thereto. Butler v. Boston Steamship Co., 130 U.S. 555, 9 Sup.Ct. 612, 32 L.Ed. 1017.

The ferryboat had a considerable load of trucks, heavy with cans of milk. Care was paid to the distribution of the load, as the Passaic was not a large boat and her displacement was materially affected by each loaded four-horse milk truck. Wilson was an oiler at the time, and was alone in the part of the engine room where the accident occurred.

The main steam pipe from the boilers to the engine, after being carried upon hangers for a considerable distance under the frame of the vessel, makes a right-angle turn to connect with the butterfly throttle valve at the steam chest. One of the flanges fastening the valve to the steam chest broke from the main portion of the valve, showing a clean fracture entirely around the end of the pipe. The position of the pipe after the accident was shown upon the trial. The remainder of the valve and the short arm of the elbow were upheld by the throttle lever running from the valve to the floor of the engine room above, while the bend of the elbow itself turned down as far as the steam pipe could sag; the nearest hanger being drawn out from the timbers of the deck to which it was suspended, thus allowing some movement or play to the elbow when freed from the counterbalance of the pipe into the steam chest.

The testimony upon the trial indicated sufficiently that the hanger was drawn out by whatever force caused the fracture. There was no evidence and no physical fact shown from which to conclude that the weight of the pipe, or any violence, tore out the hanger before the fracture, or that the weight of the pipe alone caused any change in the position of the hangers, except at the time of the break itself. There was no evidence of an explosion or bursting, in the sense of a blowing out from the interior of the steam pipe, and the escape of steam was shown by the testimony to have come through the open end of the pipe after the fracture. The pipe itself showed no flaw, except that it had not been cast in such a way as to secure concentric registration of the outer and inner circumferences; that is, one side of the pipe was somewhat thinner than the other at the break. But the thinnest part of the steam pipe was thicker than the minimum requirements of the United States regulations covering the use of a steam pipe for the pressure and situation specified. Upon the morning in question the steam pressure was well below the amount allowed upon an inspection but a short time before by the government inspectors.

Under these circumstances no testimony was presented from which negligence could be inferred, because no testimony suggesting a reason for the accident was furnished, beyond the fact that the death resulted from the escaping steam, and that the escaping steam came from the fractured pipe, and that the fracture was the result of a strain, either either external (that is, by the application of some force to the pipe itself), or internal (by a sudden impact of steam). Any physical explanation of the accident from defect in construction or handling is impossible on the evidence.

The representatives of the deceased have offered no evidence showing any improper use of the machinery or engines from which the conclusion could be drawn that a sudden application of steam occurred, so that no negligence in that way, nor in the management of the engine itself, has been proven.

The personal representative of the deceased has attempted to show that this particular ferryboat was old, and that her deck timbers sagged and gave under the passage or continued weight of a heavy milk wagon.

But the testimony as to the structure of the boat and the plan of her timbering, which was integral with the keel and which would not allow of sagging unless it affected the entire hull, removes the possibility of concluding that the deck timbers from which the steam pipe was suspended could have sagged to such an extent as to break the pipe in question, especially as they were found afterward to be sound, and no possibility of deviation from the horizontal was located at the spot in question.

The testimony as to the displacement of the boat in the water, or as to the creaking or bending of the plank flooring of the deck, was not traced in any way to a resultant movement of the deck timbers; and, in the absence of a giving way or change in position of these timbers, it is impossible to conclude that any strain could be communicated to the steam pipe by means of the hangers, sufficient to cause the break in question. In this regard it must be remembered that the break was inside of the engine room space, and that the pipe was suspended under the deck timbers forming the side of the engine room space at the inner side of one of the horse-gangways. A strain caused by displacement, sufficient to break the pipe at the flange, would have had to be transmitted by the pipe itself, and, taking into account the elasticity of the timbering, the hangers, and the pipe ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • The Erie Lighter 108
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • April 16, 1918
    ...... rights and responsibilities of the parties must, as claimant. contends, be judged according to the provisions of the. federal Employers' Liability Act, in so far as they are. applicable. Erie R.R. v. Jacobus, 221 F. 335, 137. C.C.A. 151 (C.C.A.3d Cir.); The Passaic (D.C.E.D.N.Y.) 190 F. 644, affirmed 204 F. 266, 122 C.C.A. 466 (C.C.A.2d Cir.). . . Since I. have heretofore found that the decedent's injuries were. in no respect due to his own negligence or that of his fellow. servants, the petitioner's liability, if any, must be. found in some ......
  • Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 23, 1913
    ......Co. (C. C.) . 167 F. 660, 104 C. C. A. 151; Dewberry v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C.) 175 F. 307; Fithian et al. v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 188 F. 842; Whittaker v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 176 F. 130; Oliver v. Northern P. Ry. Co. (D. C.) 196 F. 432; The Passaic (D. C.) 190 F. 644; Behrens v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. (D. C.) 192 F. 581; Central Ry. Co. of N. J. v. Colasurdo, 192 F. 901, 113 C. C. A. 379; Zikos v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (C. C.) 179 F. 893. . .          We next. come to consider whether the rights enacted under the ......
  • Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 23, 1913
    ......Midland Valley Ry. Co. (C. C.) 167 F. 660, 104 C.C.A. 151; Dewberry v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C.) 175 F. 307; Fithian et al. v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 188 F. 842; Whittaker v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 176 F. 130; Oliver v. Northern P. Ry. Co. (D.C.) 196 F. 432; The Passaic (D.C.) 190 F. 644; Behrens v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. (D.C.) 192 F. 581; Central Ry. Co. of N. I. v. Colasurdo, 192 F. 901, 113 C.C.A. 379; Zikos v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (C. C.) 170 F. 893. We next come to consider whether the rights enacted under the federal statute may be enforced or invoked as a ......
  • The West Hartland
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)
    • September 21, 1923
    ...... evidence with relation to the market value can serve no. purpose. Whether the petitioner shall recover any portion. expended for the repairs need not now be determined. The. pending freight was surrendered upon order of the court when. the amount was ascertained. The Passaic (D.C.) 190 F. 644;. The Defender (D.C.) 214 F. 316; The Rochester (D.C.) 230 F. 519. . . There. can be no question as to the seaworthiness of the West. Hartland at the time in issue. . . Upon. the question of exemption from all liability the testimony is. confusing, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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