Anderson v. The Ashebrooke
| Decision Date | 01 December 1890 |
| Citation | 44 F. 124 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. THE ASHEBROOKE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
James B. & Charles B. Stubbs, for libelant.
McLemore & Campbell, for claimant.
December 28, 1888, John Anderson, cotton screwman, went to work having been employed, with others, to load with cotton the British steam-ship Ashebrooke, then lying at the port of Galveston. J. Moller & Co. were the charterers of the ship for a lump sum under a charter-party which provided that the charterers were to pay for compressing cotton and stevedoring, but the vessel should furnish the use of her tackle in loading, and to trim and discharge her ballast as charterers may desire, at her expense, and to afford charterers the same accommodations as if loaded by the pound. Charterers contracted with the firm of Sweeney & Co. stevedores, to load the vessel. Sweeney & Co. hired Anderson to assist in the work. Anderson was first employed in the work of slinging cotton aboard from the wharf; but, having finished that employment, under directions, started, with others, aboard the ship to go down into the hold to assist in stowing away cotton already sent down. The means provided by the ship for Anderson and his comrades to go down below was through a hatch, which was in use for lowering cotton by means of a tackle operated by a steam-winch, or hoisting apparatus. The combing, or guard, of the hatch, was from two to three feet high, and the only means of descent from the deck into the hold was through this hatch by an iron ladder which was fastened or bolted to the forward end of the hatch about amid-ships, and at the same end of the hatch as the winch. The winch extended almost entirely across the end of the hatch, and was so close thereto that there was no room for any one to pass between in order to reach the ladder; and any one descending into the hold was obliged to step over and upon a part of the winch. At the time, said winch was out of repair by reason of defective packing, so much so that quantities of steam escaped, and it would start unexpectedly, and would not promptly obey the lever which was used for starting and stopping, but would continue to revolve after the steam was turned off, and the lever was on the center; and was uncertain and unreliable in holding a load suspended preparatory to its dumping in the proper place. At the time Anderson went aboard, the winch was still, the steam turned off, and the lever was on the center; the tackle, being at that time loaded with bales of cotton partially lowered into the hold, stopped a short distance from the bottom, waiting for directions to dump at the proper time and place. The man at the lever of the winch was watching the foreman of the hatch for the signal to start it, and the foreman was looking down into the hold to see when the men below wanted the load lowered the rest of the way. Without giving any notice of his intention of going down into the hold, and without ascertaining whether any load was suspended on the tackle, and without being noticed by the men in charge, Anderson stepped across by and upon the winch in the usual way to reach the ladder. As he did so it suddenly started, without any act on the part of the man in charge of the winch or the foreman; probably set in motion either by the weight of the sling load of cotton suspended in the ship's hold, or by Anderson stepping upon it, or from both causes combined. When it started it caught Anderson's leg between the projecting end of the piston-rod, as it rapidly revolved, and the combing of the hatch, and crushed and broke his leg; at the same time threw him against other parts of the machinery, tore the flesh from and lacerated the upper part of the leg, or thigh; and, in short, caused such severe injuries that, after months of pain and suffering, his leg was necessarily amputated. It further appears that, prior to the injury of Anderson, complaint was made to the engineer of the vessel of the defective state of the machine, with a request to have it repaired, which request was refused. In this case, Anderson claims damages against the ship for his injuries; and, from a decree in his favor, allowing him $3,000, the claimant has appealed.
It seems clear from the evidence that the libelant, Anderson was guilty of negligence and carelessness, without which he would not have been injured. He knew, or ought to have known, that while the winch was in operation, the danger of attempting to go down into the hold was largely increased; he knew, or ought to have known, that in using the winch for lowering cotton in the hold it was customary to lower the sling load of cotton part of the way, and there hold it till the men below were ready to receive it. Before he attempted to go down into the hold, he should have notified the parties in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Del Norte
...No. 17,894; The Volunteer, Fed. Cas. No. 16,991; Posey v. Scoville (C.C.) 10 F. 140: The T. A. Goddard (D.C.) 12 F. 174; Anderson v. The Ashebrooke (C.C.) 44 F. 124; The Euripides (D.C.) 52 F. 161; Steamship Co. Washington, 6 C.C.A. 313, 57 F. 224; The Alvira (D.C.) 63 F. 144; The Nicaragua......
-
The City of Naples, 536.
...The Jersey City, 1 U.S.App. 244, 2 C.C.A. 365, 51 F. 527; Levy v. The Thomas Melville, 37 F. 272; The Saratoga, 40 F. 509; Anderson v. The Ashbrooke, 44 F. 124. It insisted with great earnestness that the libelant's injuries were the result of his own negligence in stepping into a hatchway ......
-
Carter v. Brown
...held that the fellow-servant rule afforded appellants no protection as against the appellee's claim. In the case of Anderson v. The Ashebrooke (C.C.) 44 F. 124, Circuit Judge Pardee, speaking of the application of fellow-servant rule, said (page 127): 'Reliance is placed upon the case of Th......