Alaska SS Co. v. Katzeek
| Citation | 16 F.2d 210 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4834.,4834. |
| Parties | ALASKA S. S. CO. v. KATZEEK. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Bogle, Bogle & Gates, of Seattle, Wash., and R. E. Robertson, of Juneau, Alaska, for plaintiff in error.
Redman & Alexander, of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Error is assigned to the admission of testimony to show that, shortly after the accident, on the renewal of the effort of the crew to remove the boiler, the tackle again broke, causing the boiler to fall. The evidence was offered for the purpose of showing the defendant's negligence in failing to furnish adequate tackle. Upon that ground the court overruled the objection to its admission, and later, upon the ground that the evidence tended to prove the weight of the boiler, as well as the inadequacy of the tackle, the court overruled the defendant's motion to strike out the testimony. Upon the grounds so stated we think the evidence was admissible. It is permissible to adduce evidence of other accidents or injuries occurring from the same cause and near the same time, to show the existence of defects in the property used, and to show that the defendant failed to adopt proper precautions to prevent injury from the defective nature of his appliances. 29 Cyc. 611, 612. This is not a case where evidence of a similar accident was introduced to prove the negligence of the defendant in the particular act declared upon. Here the purpose of the evidence was to show that immediately after the accident the conditions had not changed and that the tackle used by the defendant was defective. By the decided weight of authority evidence of similar accidents may be adduced, when it is given only to illustrate a physical fact before or after the occurrence which is under investigation and the conditions of that occurrence. O'Brien v. Las Vegas & T. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 242 F. 850; Marathon Lumber Co. v. Dennis (C. C. A.) 296 F. 471; Aurora v. Brown, 12 Ill. App. 122; Unterbrink v. City of Alton, 206 Ill. App. 254; Kress & Co. v. Markline, 117 Miss. 37, 77 So. 858, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 310; Cleveland, Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Newell, 104 Ind. 264, 3 N. E. 836, 54 Am. Rep. 312; Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham v. Starr, 112 Ala. 98, 20 So. 424; St. Jos. & D. C. R. Co. v. Chase, 11 Kan. 47.
It was not error to exclude the answer of the mate of the Cordova to the question whether or not he was surprised, or had expected that the pin or the shackle would break. The purpose of the defendant was to show that it was not guilty of willfulness or wantonness in connection with the accident; but no such willfulness or wantonness was charged in the complaint, and no evidence was offered tending to suggest it.
Error is assigned to the denial of the defendant's application for a bill of particulars, and it is urged that the defendant was entitled to know the particulars of the plaintiff's employment and the place where he was at the time of the accident. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was on a designated wharf in the employment of the owner thereof, and was performing the functions of his employment at the time when the steamship was unloading freight upon the wharf consigned to the owner, and the reply alleged that the plaintiff was lawfully performing his functions upon the wharf with the full knowledge and consent of the defendant. Section 908 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska of 1913 provides that, "when the allegations of a pleading are so indefinite or uncertain that the precise nature of the charge or defense is not apparent, the court may require the pleading to be made definite and certain by amendment." The granting or refusing of a bill of particulars is a matter which rests in the discretion of the court, and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal, unless upon inspection of the whole record it appears that the refusal has resulted in injustice....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LOUISIANA FARMERS'P. UNION v. Great Atlantic & Pac. T. Co.
...Practice (1938), Vol. 1, page 656; Simpkin's Federal Practice (1938), page 280; Harper v. Harper, 4 Cir., 252 F. 39; Alaska S.S. Co. v. Katzeek, 9 Cir., 16 F.2d 210; McKenna et al. v. United States Lines, Inc., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 558. Matters of evidence are not required to be stated in a bil......
-
Walling v. Fairmont Creamery Co.
...showing of an abuse of the court's discretion, will not be reviewed on appeal. Harper v. Harper, 4 Cir., 252 F. 39; Alaska Steamship Company v. Katzeek, 9 Cir., 16 F.2d 210. The district courts in actions for injunctions under the Fair Labor Standards Act have allowed bills of particulars i......
-
Femmer v. City of Juneau
...only in a case where an action is brought on an account. See, Williams v. Ingle, 1921, 99 Or. 358, 195 P. 570, 572; Alaska Co. v. Katzeek, 9 Cir., 1926, 16 F.2d 210, 211. On appeal appellee has conceded the right of appellant taxpayer to bring this suit in equity Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 ......
-
Mulloney v. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 7197.
...upon which he will rely to prove his allegation. Beacon Folding Machine Co. v. Rotary Machine Co., D.C., 23 F.2d 345; Alaska S. S. Co. v. Katzeek, 9 Cir., 16 F.2d 210. But this limitation does not preclude the defendants from moving for a more definite statement of plaintiff's claim, even t......