Barney Dumping Boat Co. v. Clark

Decision Date06 December 1901
Citation112 F. 921
PartiesBARNEY DUMPING BOAT CO. v. CLARK.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

E. C Perkins, for plaintiff in error.

Fredk. E. Perham, for defendant in error.

This cause comes here upon appeal from a judgment of the circuit court, Southern district of New York (109 F. 235), entered upon a verdict in favor of defendant in error, who was plaintiff below. The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff was employed to work on defendant's dumping boat No. 17 in September, 1894. It was an iron boat used for dumping garbage, and built in two longitudinal sections, so as to open in the middle. The accident happened on the deck covering the round stern of the boat, and which is a part of the rear bridge or platform, of which the boat has three, which remain stationary when the boat is opened to dump. Part of this deck is occupied by a deck house, inside of which is the wheel. Over the exposed portion of the deck swings the tiller, being operated through blocks, containing sheaves or pulleys on which the wheel rope runs, located one to starboard and one to port. Two bitts or posts 1 foot square and 3 1/2 feet high project up from the deck. The distance between them is 9 1/2 feet. Their use is to hold the hawser by which the boat, which has no motive power of her own, is towed. The blocks through which the tiller chain runs are located a little aft of the bitts, and somewhat further out. The top of each block is an iron plate 11 by 16 1/2 inches. The height of the block is 12 inches. The distance between the outside of each bitt and the inside of each block is 1 foot. The distance between each bitt and the deck house is about 11 inches. Just aft of the deck house are two hatchways 6 inches high. The tiller swings over a part of these hatchways, but on the starboard side of the boat, where plaintiff was standing when the accident happened, the inner part, over which the tiller does not swing, is 13 inches long on its starboard side, and 11 inches long on its port side. On December 19, 1894, between 7 and 8 p.m., while the boat was being towed stern-first out of the slip, it became necessary to shift a hawser off the starboard bitt. Plaintiff and the mate lifted it off, and the mate had just started forward with it, when the rudder was struck by the tide rushing by the end of the pier, in consequence of which the tiller swept swiftly around from amidships to starboard, and struck the plaintiff, injuring him severely.

Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges, and TOWNSEND, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The first proposition advanced by the defendant is that there was no evidence in the case tending to show any negligence on the part of the defendant. It is, no doubt, true that the master is not bound to provide a safe place for his employes to work in, but only a reasonably safe,lace. It may often not be practicable to provide a safe place, the nature of the work precluding it. All that is required is that the master should act in that regard as a reasonably prudent man would do, and what is reasonable prudence depends always on the facts of each case. The jury in the case at bar, however, were fairly entitled to find that the stern deck was a place not even reasonably safe. That so much of that deck as was swept over by the tiller was a highly-dangerous place is manifest, and apparently not disputed. That it was so extremely difficult as to be well-nigh impossible for two men to work at the same time lifting a hawser off the starboard bitt, without one of them standing within range of the tiller, is plain from the model and the testimony. There was evidence in the case that the block might have been moved 11 1/2 inches without making any appreciable difference in the steering capacity of the boat. This would reduce the area of danger. It does not appear that it was not entirely practicable to bridge over the area traversed by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Burch v. Southern Pac. Co.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 1 octobre 1909
    ...Dells Lbr. Co. v. Erickson, 80 F. 257, 25 C. C. A. 397; Chgo. Housewkg. Co. v. Birney, 117 F. 72, 54 C. C. A. 458; Barney Dumping Boat Co. v. Clark, 112 F. 921, 50 C. A. 616; Cunard Steamsp. Co. v. Carey, 119 U.S. 245, 7 S.Ct. 1360, 30 L.Ed. 354; Lyttle v. Railway, 84 Mich. 289, 47 N.W. 571......
  • Ainsley v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 11 mars 1914
    ... ... Suchomel v ... Maxwell, 240 Ill. 231, 88 N.E. 558; Barny Dumping ... Boat v. Clark, 112 F. 921, 50 C. C. A. 616; ... Homestake Mining Co ... ...
  • Burch v. Southern Pac. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 5 septembre 1905
    ... ... Co. v ... Fullerton, 69 F. 923, 927, 16 C.C.A. 545; Barney ... Dumping Boat Co. v. Clark, 112 F. 921, 50 C.C.A. 616; ... Cudahy ... ...
  • Union Pressed Brick Co. v. Fultonham Brick & Drain Tile Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 7 janvier 1902

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