The France
| Decision Date | 12 January 1894 |
| Docket Number | 34. |
| Citation | 59 F. 479 |
| Parties | THE FRANCE. v. McDONALD. NATIONAL STEAMSHIP CO., Limited, |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
John Chetwood, for appellant.
J. A Hyland, for appellee.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
The libelant, a fireman in the service of the steamship, was severely injured while assisting in the removal of ashes from the vessel. The steamship, at the time, was lying alongside her dock in the port of New York, and the ashes were being removed from her stokehole in canvas bags, which were filled in the stokehole, and then hoisted by a chain and winch to the main deck, whence they were carried by hand to carts stationed on the dock, and their contents discharged. The libelant and two other men were assigned the duty of filling the bags and hooking them to the chain. One of the bags after it had been filled, weighing about 120 pounds, and while it was being hoisted by the winch, fell a distance of about 25 feet, and struck the libelant. It was found that the rope handle by which the bag had been attached to the hook had parted.
The question for decision is whether the steamship was in fault for providing an unsafe appliance for the work which the libelant was required to do. The district court condemned the steamship upon the theory that the bag was not sufficiently strong for safe use. While there is evidence in the record which tends to show that the accident was caused by the negligence of some of the fellow servants of the libelant there is none upon which negligence can be imputed to the steamship, aside from that which relates to the sufficiency of the bag.
An employer does not undertake absolutely with his employes for the sufficiency or safety of the appliances furnished for their work. He does undertake to use all reasonable care and prudence to provide them with appliances reasonably safe and suitable. His obligation towards them is satisfied by the exercise of a reasonable diligence in this behalf. Before he can be made responsible for an injury to an employe inflicted by an appliance adequate and suitable, ordinarily, for the work to be performed with it, there must be satisfactory evidence that it was defective at the time, and that he knew or ought to have known, of the defect. The decision in the court below proceeded upon the ground that negligence was to be presumed from the circumstances of the accident. In his opinion the learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc, 176
... ... Halverson v. Nisen, 11 Fed.Cas. page 310, No. 5,970; The Noddleburn, D.C., 28 F. 855; The 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. 685 ... Although some courts held shipowners liable for injuries caused by 'active' negligence, The Edith Godden, D.C., 23 F. 43; The Frank & Willie, D.C., 45 F. 494, it was held in The City of Alexandria, D.C., 17 F ... ...
-
Dixon v. United States
... ... While the shipowner was under a duty to furnish his seamen with a safe place to work, including safe appliances — The Noddleburn, D.C.D.Or. 1886, 28 F. 855; The Neptuno, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1887, 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 in all instances where the seaman's injury was attributable to negligence chargeable to the owner. In The ... ...
-
Stewart v. United States
... ... Libelant was injured on a return voyage from France and Belgium by the bursting of a glass water gauge which he had personally installed just before to replace one previously broken. A piece of glass entered his eye, the sight of which he ultimately lost. He contends that the absence of a chain device on the upper and lower cocks operating the water ... ...
-
Garnett v. Phoenix Bridge Co.
... ... employment, the defendant, though not the guardian of her ... person, had become bound to protect him from any injury, ... while pursuing that employment, which might be averted by the ... exercise of ordinary care to furnish him with reasonably safe ... appliances. The France, 20 U.S.App. 215, 8 C.C.A. 185, 59 F ... 479; Paving Co. v. Odasz's Adm'x, 20 ... U.S.App. 326, 8 C.C.A. 471, 60 F. 71; Reilly v ... Campbell, 20 U.S.App. 334, 8 C.C.A. 438, 59 F. 990; ... Baulec v. Railroad Co., 59 N.Y. 356-359. 'The ... liability of the master for injuries to the servant ... ...