The Miami

Citation87 F. 757
PartiesTHE MIAMI.
Decision Date02 May 1898
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Cowen Wing, Putnam & Burlingham, for libelant.

Convers & Kirlin, for claimant.

THOMAS District Judge.

Thomas Ashton, the libelant, an experienced seaman, was boatswain on the steamship Miami, on her passage from Hamburg to Baltimore. On January 19, 1897, the libelant, having been ordered so to do by the first mate, undertook, with the aid of three seamen, to lower the foe topmast into the hollow foremast. The topmast when raised is held in position by an iron fid or bar, which passes through the foremast and also the lower end of the topmast. A chain is fastened by its upper end to an iron shackle. This shackle has eyes at its two ends, through which a bolt passes, fastening it firmly to a staple riveted to the foremast. The chain is from the shackle carried under the lower end of the topmast; thence upward over a pulley on the foremast; thence downward, and would several times around a drum, connected with a winch on the deck; and the free end of the chain extends on the deck where it is intended to be handled in the manner following When it is desired to lower the topmast, the winch is set in operation and the topmast slowly raised, so as to relieve the fid from its weight, and the fid is then withdrawn. Thereupon the weight of the topmast rests upon the chain alone, and this weight would cause the chain to unwind from the drum unless prevented by some counteracting force applied to the chain. For this purpose the free end of the chain is held by two or more seamen delegated for that purpose. On the occasion in question the libelant wound the chain five times around the drum, as he says (the mate says six times), and then took his position on the cap of the mast and assisted in the removal of the fid, the topmast being slightly raised to allow this removal to be effected. After the removal of the fid the topmast rested on the chain alone, which was prevented from unwinding by the force applied by two seamen holding the free end of the deck. The seamen slightly relaxed the chain, to allow the topmast to descend, which, however, it did not do at once. The first mate, seeing that the topmast did not readily descend, stated that there were too many turns of the chain around the drum to permit the chain to render or pay out. Thereupon he took the chain from the hands of the seamen, unwound one turn thereof from the drum, meanwhile preventing the chain from rendering by pressing down on the chain on the drum with his hand. He then undertook to leave the chain and the holding thereof to the seamen, while he himself stepped aside. The seamen at this time had no hold, or no sufficient hold, of the chain, to prevent it from running or slipping around the drum too rapidly. The result was that the seamen could not hold the chain, and it rendered so rapidly that they finally abandoned it, whereupon the topmast fell with great rapidity. The ropes, stays, and other rigging fell swiftly and violently upon the boatswain, who was still on the mast, hurling him upon the deck, and injuring him to a very serious extent.

It is claimed on the part of the libelant that the removal of one loop from the drum was a contributing cause of the accident, as it made it impossible for the seaman to restrain the too rapid rendering of the chain.

It will be noticed that, after the chief officer had taken off one loop, but four...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Fogarty v. St. Louis Transfer Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1904
    ... ... 385; Sontar v. Elec. Co., 68 Minn. 18; Sayward ... v. Carlson, 1 Wash. 29; Holtz v. Railroad, 69 ... Minn. 524; Nat. Fertilizer Co. v. Travis, 102 Tenn ... 16; Railroad v. Schwabbe, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 573; ... Quinn v. N. J. Lighterage Co., 23 F. 363; The Miami, ... 93 F. 218, 87 F. 757; Dwyer v. American Express Co., ... 55 Wis. 453, 82 Wis. 312; Lee v. Detroit Bridge & Iron ... Works, 62 Mo. 565; Marshall v. Schricker, 63 ... Mo. 311; Moore v. Railroad, 85 Mo. 596; Schaub ... v. Railroad, 106 Mo. 88; Grattis v. Railroad, ... 153 Mo ... ...
  • The Lamington
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 6, 1898
  • Carlson v. United New York Sandy Hook Pilots' Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 7, 1899
    ... ... 397; Railroad Co. v ... Hambly, 154 U.S. 349, 14 Sup.Ct. 983; Same v ... Charless, 162 U.S. 359, 16 Sup.Ct. 848; Same v ... Peterson, 162 U.S. 346, 16 Sup.Ct. 843; The City of ... Alexandria, 17 F. 390, 392; The Queen, 40 F. 694; The Job T ... Wilson, 84 F. 204, 207; The Miami, 87 F. 757, 759, 760, ... affirmed in 93 F. 218 ... As the ... maritime law gives no action for death caused by negligence ... on the high seas (The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 7 Sup.Ct ... 140), this action can rest only upon the state statute; and ... to make that applicable the ... ...
  • Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co. v. Callaghan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 10, 1907
    ... ... presence of the dynamite, proceeded to drill out the hole, ... the dynamite exploded, and he was injured; but the foreman ... was held to be his fellow servant. To the same effect are ... Kansas & A.V. Ry. Co. v. Waters, 16 C.C.A. 609, 70 ... F. 28, and The Miami (D.C.) 87 F. 757 ... [155 F. 401.] ... The ... principles and authorities to which reference has been made ... leave no alternative in the case in hand. The plaintiff and ... Douglas were engaged in the same work, the work of ... dismantling heavy machinery, and at the moment of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT