Bonnewell v. United States, 5768.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 5768.,5768. |
| Citation | 170 F.2d 411 |
| Parties | BONNEWELL v. UNITED STATES et al. THE HALAULA VICTORY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Henry E. Howell, Jr., and R. Arthur Jett, both of Norfolk, Va., for appellant.
Leon T. Seawell, of Norfolk, Va., for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
The libellant in the District Court suffered the fracture of his right arm and consequent loss of earnings when he stumbled and fell over a pad-eye or iron fastening attached to the deck of the flying bridge on the steamship Halaula Victory, owned by the United States, and operated by the Matson Navigation Company as its agent. Bonnewell was a tug boat captain and master mariner of long experience, and was employed at the time by the Wood Towing Company which had undertaken at the request of the agent of the ship to shift her from the north to the south side of a pier in the Norfolk harbor. The libellant was in charge of the maneuver and made use of three tugs to effectuate it. Parallel to the south side of the pier lay a ship and a barge moored to the north side of an adjoining pier so that only about 100 feet remained in which to maneuver the Halaula Victory, a ship more than 60 feet in width. The restriced area for maneuvering, and a strong tide made it highly desirable for him to board the ship and direct the operation from her flying bridge in order to avoid collision with the pier or other vessels. While occupying this station he was required to observe and to direct the movement of the ship and the three tugs, and at one point in the course of the maneuver he found it necessary to cross quickly to the port side of the bridge, and in so doing, fell over the obstruction and was injured.
A navigation platform was located in the middle of the flying bridge, and between its forward rail and the forward rail of the bridge itself there was a passageway only 3 feet in width. Near the port end of this passage the pad-eye, running fore and aft, 5 to 6 inches in height with a ring or eye 2½ or 3 inches in diameter on a base 10 to 12 inches long, was fastened to the deck. The structure was located about 1 to 1½ feet from the port end of the passage-way, and extended from 1 to 1½ feet aft from the rail of the bridge. Thus the ring was directly in the path of the libellant as he strove to reach the port end of the bridge some 20 feet beyond the eye. Originally the eye was painted white, but at the time of the accident it was a dark gray and nearly the same in color as the deck itself.
The original plans of construction of the Victory ships disclose a pad-eye placed upon the flying bridge deck at or about the location of the pad-eye on the Victory ship in question; but the pad-eye on the plans does not extend so far aft of the rail of the bridge and was smaller in size and construction, and therefore somewhat less likely to cause such an accident as happened here. The purpose of the pad-eye was clearly established. A hinged signal mast was located about 14 feet aft of the eye which was designed to secure the forward stay of the mast when it was lowered. The evidence is in conflict as to whether such pad-eyes were found on the bridge of all Victory ships; but the weight of the testimony indicates that it was a customary part of the equipment and served a useful purpose. There was, however, no testimony to show that it was necessary so to place the device as to obstruct the passage-way,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. The SS Beatrice
...1953 A.M.C. 2071, 2077; Bonnewell v. United States of America, D.C.E.D.Va.1947, 1948 A.M.C. 842, 844, reversed on other grounds, 4 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 411. For example, in Robins Dry Dock and Repair Company v. Navigazione Libera Triestina, S.A., supra, Crouch, J., in discussing the legal e......
-
Bielunas v. F
...423 (2d Cir.1962) (holding that a cluttered deck constitutes Jones Act negligence and vessel unseaworthiness); Bonnewell v. United States, 170 F.2d 411, 412-13 (4th Cir.1948) (same)-which is all the liberal relevancy standard requires, see, e.g., Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14, 20 (1st C......
-
Badhwar v. Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation
...F.2d 352, 355; Johnson v. United States, 2 Cir., 168 F. 2d 886; Lynch v. Agwilines, Inc., 2 Cir., 184 F.2d 826, 828; Bonnewell v. United States, 4 Cir., 170 F.2d 411, 412; Dale v. Henry P. Rosenfeld, 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 855, ...
-
Verbeeck v. Black Diamond Steamship Corp., 178
...661, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 836, 67 S.Ct. 1519, 91 L.Ed. 1849; Johnson v. United States, 2 Cir., 168 F. 2d 886; Bonnewell v. United States, 4 Cir., 170 F.2d 411, 412; Dale v. Rosenfeld, 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 855, 858; Holmes, The Common Law 124-129 (1881). We think there is ample evidence of......