Hovland v. Fearnley & Eger
| Citation | 110 F. Supp. 657 |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 171 of 1952.,171 of 1952. |
| Parties | HOVLAND v. FEARNLEY & EGER et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for Fearnley and Eger.
Henry Heebner, Philadelphia, Pa., for Reading Co.
This is an action in admiralty against three respondents for damages for personal injuries incurred on shore by the libellant, who was an employee of a firm of ship chandlers and who was leaving the vessel after having boarded it in the course of his employment. One of the respondents is the owner of the ship, which was lying in navigable waters moored to a pier and discharging cargo. The second respondent, the local agent for the owner, was actually conducting the work of discharging the cargo. The third respondent is the owner of the pier and of an electric crane moving along tracks on the pier.
The facts of the injury as stated in the libel are as follows:
"At or about 10:00 a. m. on the aforesaid date, libellant descended the gangway of the vessel on the pier and was engaged in proceeding toward the shore end of the pier when he was suddenly and violently struck from behind by the wheel assembly of the aforementioned crane, which operated over the tracks next adjacent to the vessel in connection with the removal of cargo from the holds of the vessel, causing him to fall across the tracks and under the assembly, as a consequence of which he was crushed and otherwise severely injured as hereinafter more fully described."
The cause of action is stated against all the respondents in various ways, one of which is "permitting the discharge of water, waste and other liquids and materials from the vessel on to the dock, so as to interfere with the use of a portion of the pier intended for pedestrian travel" and "failing to take prompt, proper and adequate steps and means to remove or remedy the said condition."
Peremptory exceptions, based on want of jurisdiction, have been filed by all the respondents.
The injury having been both done and consummated on land, jurisdiction depends upon whether the injury was "caused by a vessel on navigable water". Act of June 19, 1948, 46 U.S.C.A. § 740.
For an injury to be caused by a vessel within the meaning of the Act, it is not necessary that the vessel itself be the physical instrumentality producing it. The phrase covers injuries which result from acts of the vessel's personnel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Harris County, Texas
...v. City of Los Angeles, 196 F.Supp. 89 (S.D.Cal.1961), and by a discharge of a ship's waste material onto the dock, Hovland v. Fearnley & Eger, 110 F.Supp. 657 (E.D.Pa.1952). Situations in which injuries have been held not to be caused by a ship include those resulting from a libelous lette......
-
Gebhard v. SS Hawaiian Legislator
...Act. The few cases in point support our conclusion. Fematt v. City of Los Angeles, 196 F.Supp. 89 (S.D.Cal.1961); Hovland v. Fearnley & Eger, 110 F.Supp. 657 (E.D.Pa.1952). David Crystal, Inc. v. Cunard S.S. Co., 223 F.Supp. 273 (S.D.N.Y.), is not contra, since our result does not rest on t......
-
JW Petersen Coal & Oil Co. v. United States
...damaged by oil sludge discharged from certain barges. The court upheld recovery under 46 U.S.C. § 740. See also Hovland v. Fearnley & Eger, 110 F.Supp. 657 (E.D.Pa.1952); Petition of New Jersey Barging Corporation, 168 F.Supp. 925 (S.D.N.Y.1958); and Gutierrez v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 373 U.......
-
Michigan Mutual Liability Company v. Arrien
...112 F.Supp. 202 (S.D.N.Y.1952) (injury caused by dangerous cargo; claim based on unseaworthiness and negligence); Hovland v. Fearnley & Eger, 110 F.Supp. 657 (E.D.Pa.1952) (injury caused by slipping on waste or water; claim based on 4 The plaintiffs also have argued that Congress, since it ......