Hanrahan v. Pacific Transport Co.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1919
• Docket Number: 44.
• Citation: 262 F. 951
• Parties: HANRAHAN v. PACIFIC TRANSPORT CO., Limited.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

262 F. 951

HANRAHAN v. PACIFIC TRANSPORT CO., Limited.

No. 44.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 12, 1919

Silas B. Axtell, of New York City (Arthur Lavenburg, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Kirlin Woolsey & Hickox, of New York City (Robert S. Erskine, of New York City, and L. De Grove Potter, of White Plains, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant in error.

Certiorari denied 251 U.S. . . ., 40 Sup.Ct. 345, 64 L.Ed. . . . .

The Pacific Company is the owner of a steamship, and Hanrahan was a member of her crew. The vessel being in port, and fast to a pier, Hanrahan returned at night from shore leave, and while walking on the upper deck, and toward his quarters, fell overboard, suffering personal injuries, for which he brought this common-law action. We assume for the purposes of this case that the reason why he was injured was that by the negligence of the ship's officers a certain handrail was not in place. This rail consisted of wire rope passing through stanchions, which were insertable in sockets built into the deck. It was erected to take the place of a bulwark.

From all the evidence the jury might have found that Hanrahan's injuries were caused or contributed to by the absence of the handrail. He asked to go to the jury on the theory that the vessel was unseaworthy by reason of the failure of those in charge of her to maintain the handrail in place. This motion having been denied, and verdict directed as above, he took this writ.

Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.

HOUGH Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

If defendant, as master, had been constructing a house, instead of operating a ship, and plaintiff (the servant) had fallen from a defective scaffold, instead of from an unguarded deck the resulting injury would have conferred both a common-law right and a common-law remedy, and such right would (or might) have resulted from breach of a contract recognized, if not created, by the common law.

At the time of this accident, however, plaintiff's relation to defendant resulted from a maritime contract, viz. his hiring as a seaman.

The scope and effect of such contract is defined and regulated solely by the general maritime law, which is a different system of jurisprudence from the common law, and neither subordinated to nor controlled thereby. Cf. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 Sup.Ct. 524, 61 L.Ed. 1086, L.R.A. 1918C, 451, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900.

Assuming that the master of this ship negligently omitted to place the handrail, and that there is a causal connection between such negligence and plaintiff's injuries, he is entitled, not to 'indemnity' for the consequences of that negligence, but to 'maintenance and cure'-- i.e 'care.' The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 23 Sup.Ct. 483, 47 L.Ed. 760; The Bouker No. 2, 241 F. 831, 154 C.C.A. 533. This is the result of the maritime law, and that this action was brought on the common-law side of the court below makes no difference. Plaintiff chose a common-law remedy, but the choice neither changed the maritime rights of the parties, nor created a new right. Chelentis v. Luckenbach, etc., Co., 247 U.S. 372, 38 Sup.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171.

But since by the law maritime a seaman is entitled to 'indemnity' (which may be taken as equivalent to 'damages') for injuries received through the 'unseaworthiness of the ship' (The Osceola,...