Hansen v. The Julia Fowler
| Decision Date | 23 January 1892 |
| Citation | 49 F. 277 |
| Parties | THE JULIA FOWLER. v. THE JULIA FOWLER. HANSEN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Carpenter & Mosher, for libelant.
Henry D. Hotchkiss, for claimant.
On the 7th of August, 1891, the libelant, a seaman on board the Julia Fowler, was at work with two others scrapping the mainmast on the triangular frame-work of wood surrounding the mast, which had been rigged up by the mate of the vessel for them to sit on while at work. One side of the triangle was held by the end of the main throat-halliard, which gave way while the libelant was at work, so that he feel upon the deck and suffered injuries which up to the present time have disabled him from work. The above libel is filed to recover his damages, alleging negligence in that the halliard was known to be unfit for the purpose.
The evidence shows that the triangle was rigged up under the immediate direction and inspection of the mate; that the halliard was broken at a splice; that it had not been used for the same purpose before, and was unfit and insufficient to support the three men who were sent to work in the triangle in the way that it was rigged, namely, to sustain the triangle by a single line, or purchase, instead of having the line rove through the three sheaves of the block above and the two sheaves of a block below, which would have divided the weight among five parts or purchases of the same line. The master, who at the time was sick below, states that the line would have been sufficient had it been rigged in the latter way; and that the latter was the proper and usual mode of rigging the triangle though it is sometimes done in the mode used in this case. The mate's statement that he had never seen any other mode used at sea make me discredit his testimony on all controverted points.
It is plain that the mate was negligent in the performance of his duties in the use of such a line to rig the triangle in that manner. He ordered the use of this particular rope, and superintended the rigging of it. The defect in the line was manifest upon inspection, as it was spliced, and whipped for smooth running. The negligence of the master, or chief officer who acts in the master's place, to provide safe appliances for the use of the seamen, and the deliberate use of rigging or methods plainly unsafe, affects both ship and owners with liability for the consequent damage. The chief officer was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Arizona v. Anelich
...Olson v. Flavel (D.C.) 34 F. 477, overruling Peterson v. The Chandos (D.C.) 4 F. 645; The Frank and Willie (D.C.) 45 F. 494; The Julia Fowler (D.C.) 49 F. 277; John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Erickson (C.C.A.) 261 F. 986, 987; Cricket S.S. Co. v. Parry (C.C.A.) 263 F. 523; Storgard v. France......
-
Seas Shipping Co v. Sieracki
...96, 100, 64 S.Ct. 455, 457, 88 L.Ed. 561; and ases cited; The Neptuno, D.C., 30 F. 925; The Frank and Willie, D.C., 45 F. 494; The Julia Fowler, D.C., 49 F. 277; cf. The Edwin I. Morrison, 153 U.S. 199, 210, 14 S.Ct. 823, 825, 38 L.Ed. The liability of the vessel or owner for maintenance an......
-
Mahnich v. Southern Co
...The Noddleburn, D.C., 28 F. 855, affirmed 30 F. 142; The Neptuno, D.C., 30 F. 925; The Frank and Willie, D.C., 45 F. 494; The Julia Fowler, D.C., 49 F. 277; Wm. Johnson & Co. v. Johansen, 5 Cir., 86 F. 886; and see The Columbia, D.C., 124 F. 745; The Lyndhurst, D.C., 149 F. 900. But later c......
-
Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc, 176
...Neptuno, D.C., 30 F. 925; The Lizzie Frank, D.C., 31 F. 477; The Flowergate, D.C., 31 F. 762; The A. Heaton, C.C., 43 F. 592; The Julia Fowler, D.C., 49 F. 277; The Concord, D.C., 58 F. 913; The France, 2 Cir., 59 F. 479; The Robert C. McQuillen, D.C., 91 F. Although some courts held shipow......