Marshall v. Westfal-Larsen & Co.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 15611.,15611. |
| Citation | 259 F.2d 575 |
| Parties | Harry L. MARSHALL, Jr., Appellant, v. WESTFAL-LARSEN & CO., General Steamship Company and Bjarne Sellevald, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Erskine, Erskine & Tulley, Morse Erskine, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Lillick, Geary, Wheat, Adams & Charles, Edwin L. Gerhardt, Alan H. Nichols, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before HEALY, FEE and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court denying recovery to Marshall, who, as a passenger upon a ship, sustained injuries as a result of jumping from a ladder onto a barge in disembarking from a ship lying in a harbor. Hon. Michael J. Roche, the able trial judge, who has had a long judicial experience, found that the injuries were proximately caused by and were the result of the negligence of Marshall, since he did not use the care of a reasonable and prudent person in disembarking. It was also found that the accident was not caused or contributed to by act or omission of the Master, officers, crew or employees or by any unseaworthiness of the ship. There were further findings that Marshall had failed to prove that a safe means of disembarking was not furnished, that reasonable means were not taken to safeguard Marshall, or that efficient officers and employees were not provided to superintend and supervise his disembarkation.
The question was one of fact, which has been resolved in the trial court.
There was evidence adequate to establish the facts which the court found. Marshall was a paid passenger aboard the M. S. Hardanger, which was owned and operated by Westfal-Larsen & Co., a common carrier for hire, and which was employed in foreign commerce. While the ship was anchored at Corral, Chile, the Master and Marshall left the vessel to go ashore. At the time of disembarking the gangway was so rigged to permit access to a barge from which they could board a tug. The weather was clear and dry, with a swell to the sea which moved the barge two or three feet up and down under the gangway, as Marshall knew. As Marshall descended the gangway, the Captain was behind him. Two seamen were on the barge scraping and painting the side of the vessel. Assistance was available to Marshall in reaching the barge, if he had wished it, but, when he arrived at the lower platform of the gangway, he decided to jump. At that time, the barge was about a foot and a half away from the side of the vessel and under the lower platform of the gangway. One seaman was engaged in pulling a rope to bring the barge under the gangplank and against the side of the vessel. The other seaman called "Don't jump" to Marshall, when the latter had reached the lower platform, but Marshall disregarded the warning and jumped from the platform as the barge was rising on the swell and before it reached crest. Marshall jumped at right angles to the vessel. When he landed on the barge, he tore the ligaments of his knee in preventing a fall into a hatch nearby.
Marshall testified that the Captain was close behind him and that he jumped because he had the impression from the silence of the Captain that the latter had commanded Marshall to jump....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lowry v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD, ETC.
-
Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc.
...to disembark" and must "render such services as are reasonably necessary to get a passenger safely ashore." Marshall v. Westfal-Larsen & Co., 259 F.2d 575, 577 (9th Cir.1958). Although these cases generally involve defendants who are both the shipowner and the carrier, the principles of car......
-
DeRoche v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd.
...or safety of its passengers. (Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. (11th Cir.1984) 741 F.2d 1332, 1334; Marshall v. Westfal-Larsen & Co. (9th Cir.1958) 259 F.2d 575, 577.) An operator is required to use reasonable care to furnish such aid and assistance as an ordinarily prudent person wo......
-
Tullis v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York
...See Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Trans-Atlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959); Marshall v. Westfal-Larsen & Co., 259 F.2d 575 (C. A. 9, 1958); Lampka v. Wilson Line of Washington, Inc., 117 U.S.App.D.C. 55, 325 F.2d 628 (1963). In this case the alleged breach of duty......
-
Chapter § 3.02 CRUISE SHIPS
...1018 (2d Cir. 1926). Ninth Circuit: Isham v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., 476 F.2d 835 (9th Cir. 1973); Marshall v. Westfal-Larsen & Co., 259 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1958).[312] See, e.g., Giorgio v. Holland America Line, Inc., 2006 WL 1042003 (W.D. Wash. 2006).[313] See, e.g., Bird v. Celebrity......