Lunney v. The Concord
| Decision Date | 29 November 1893 |
| Citation | 58 F. 913 |
| Parties | THE CONCORD. v. THE CONCORD. LUNNEY |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Hyland & Zabriskie, for libelant.
Convers & Kirlin, for claimant.
On the 12th of November, 1892, as the libelant, a carpenter, was descending a ladder in No. 4 hatch, going to the lower hold of the steamship Concord, a rung of the ladder broke, and the libelant fell to the bottom of the hold and sustained injuries for which the above libel was filed.
The vessel was under charter to J. M. Ceballos & Co., and her charter provided: 'If more than one kind of grain is shipped, all extra expense to be paid by charterers.' Desiring to ship more than one kind of grain, the charterers under this clause, had engaged a carpenter to put up certain necessary partitions in the lower hold in No. 4 hatch, by whom four men, including the libelant, were employed to do the work. They went to the ship on the afternoon of Friday the 11th, and began work in hatch No. 3, under some misapprehension of orders; but they were soon stopped, and on the following morning they came to work at hatch No. 4. The steamer had no stationary ladders for the lower hold. All were of wood and movable. A fore and aft partition already divided the hold; and in order to work on each side of this partition in No. 4 hatch, a ladder was put down on each side. The workmen took the two ladders which they had used the day before in No. 3 hatch. One of the ladders was long enough to reach from the bottom of the hold to the coamings, and was placed on one side of the hatch; the other ladder was to be adjusted on the other side of the partition; but it was about four feet short, and instead of being lowered at once to the bottom of the hold, and allowed to rest at the top against the partition, as was done the day before in hatch No. 3, it was suspended in the hatch by a rope running from the winch above to the third rung from the top. The libelant then went down this ladder for the purpose of making it secure by a cleat at the bottom after he was down. When part way down the ladder, and below the rung by which it was suspended, the rung broke, and by the fall he was injured as above stated.
The ladder was about 18 feet long, weighing apparently from 100 to 200 pounds. An examination of the broken rung showed that where it enters the side beam, it is about an inch in diameter; and that about one-fifth of the diameter on one side was defective. The defect was not visible by any examination before the accident, but concealed inside of the beam.
I cannot sustain the contention of the claimant that the ship was under no obligation to supply any ladders for the charterers' use in making these repairs; on the contrary I think that in making the repairs contemplated by the charter at their own expense, the charters were entitled to all the ordinary movable appliances which belonged to the ship and were in customary use in going from one part of the ship to the other; and that the ship and her owners are responsible for any lack of diligence in supplying ladders suitable for the purposes for which they were intended.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc, 176
...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 shipowners liable for injuries cause......
-
Dixon v. United States
...30 F. 925 — that duty was not an absolute one, but rather one of exercising due care. The France, 2 Cir., 1894, 59 F. 479; The Concord, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1893, 58 F. 913; The Flowergate, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1887, 31 F. 762. But the cases are not clear on whether the owner would be liable to the seaman i......
-
The Robert C. McQuillen
...injury was one incidental to libelant's employment, and assumed by him, and for the consequences of which the vessel is not liable. The Concord, 58 F. 913; The France, 8 C.C.A. 185, 59 F. The libel is dismissed. ...
- Hard v. The Enchantress