Johnson Line v. Maloney, 15244.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 15244.,15244. |
| Parties | JOHNSON LINE, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Shaun MALONEY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Bogle, Bogle & Gates, Robert V. Holland, Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
Zabel & Poth, Oscar A. Zabel and Philip J. Poth, Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before HEALY, LEMMON, and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a decree in admiralty awarding appellee the sum of $22,300 and costs for injuries suffered while in the course of his employment as a longshoreman aboard the SS Golden Gate, a merchant vessel owned and operated by appellant.
But two questions are raised on the appeal, and these are quite narrow. One is whether or not, under the evidence, the trial court erred in refusing to apply to the case the so-called "rule of transitory unseaworthiness," otherwise known as the Cookingham doctrine.1 The other contention is that the damages awarded are excessive.
The accident occurred June 23, 1953, while the Golden Gate was at a dock in Seattle, Washington. Prior to coming to Seattle wheat had been loaded on the vessel at Tacoma. The W. R. Grace Company, the concern which was to do the stevedoring at Seattle, had also done the work of loading the wheat at Tacoma, Grace being under contract with appellant. Appellee was hired by the Grace Company at Seattle as one of the gang of longshoremen to work aboard the vessel there. He did not know where the Golden Gate had come from except that it had come from the sea.
About 8:30 A.M. of the day in question, in the course of his employment, appellee was obliged to descend to the 'tweendeck of No. 7 hatch of the Golden Gate, he and the other stevedores in his gang having been instructed by their foreman to uncover the hatch and go in 'tweendecks to discharge the cargo in the lockers and wings. Appellee was the first to go down. In descending he was facing the ladder and was unable to see what was below. Taking a step or two upon reaching the bottom he slipped, and in trying to maintain his balance extended his hand and fell violently in such manner as to cause the weight of the fall to be borne on the ends of his fingers.
Concededly the slippery condition of the surface of the 'tweendeck was traceable to the presence of wheat dust and wheat kernels, and counsel for appellant do not contest the proposition that appellee was furnished by the ship with an unsafe place to work. What they argue is that the shipowner was not shown to have had notice of the unsafe condition, hence, they say, the transitory unseaworthiness doctrine should apply.
There was no affirmative showing that the debris on the deck incident to the loading of the wheat had been cleaned up following the Tacoma operation. A Mr. Dibble, who was supercargo on the Golden Gate for the Tacoma job, testified that it was part of the longshoremen's work to clean the deck after wheat was loaded. He did not, however, recollect seeing anyone cleaning the deck of No. 7 hold. Another witness for appellant, the stevedoring foreman, Patterson, testified that in small operations it is the custom of the longshoremen to do the work of cleaning, but that in a major operation it is the duty of the ship's personnel. He did not, he said, observe anyone cleaning up at Tacoma.
On the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc, 176
...the Courts of Appeals have expressed differing views. Compare Cookingham v. United States, 3 Cir., 184 F.2d 213, with Johnson Line v. Maloney, 9 Cir., 243 F.2d 293, and Poignant v. United States, 2 Cir., 225 F.2d 595. In its present posture this case thus presents the single issue whether w......
-
Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.
...of Appeals have expressed differing views. Compare Cookingham v. United States, 184 F. 2d 213 (C. A. 3d Cir.), with Johnson Line v. Maloney, 243 F. 2d 293 (C. A. 9th Cir.), and Poignant v. United States, 225 F. 2d 595 (C. A. 2d Cir.). In its present posture this case thus presents the singl......
-
Davis v. Inca Compania Naviera SA
...at 10. 28 Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 632, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959); Johnson Line v. Maloney, 243 F.2d 293, 294 (9th Cir. 1957). 29 H.R.Rep. at 4702-4704; S.Rep. at 30 H.R.Rep. at 4704; S.Rep. at 11. 31 Marant v. Farrell Lines, 1976 A.M.C. 504 (E.......
-
DeGioia v. United States Lines Company
...the jury was warranted in finding that the shipowner was negligent in failing to provide a safe place to work, e. g., Johnson Line v. Maloney, 9 Cir., 243 F.2d 293; Palazzolo v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 2 Cir., 211 F.2d 277, affirmed Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U.S.......