Burton v. Greig
| Decision Date | 28 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3571. |
| Parties | BURTON v. GREIG. THE VILDFUGL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Rene A Viosca, of New Orleans, La. (M. C. Scharff, of New Orleans La., on the brief), for appellant.
Esmond Phelps, of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
This was a libel in admiralty by the appellant, the widow of Abraham William Burton, suing in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children, against the appellee, owner of the steamship Vildfugl, to recover damages resulting from the death of the deceased on September 18, 1919, while employed as a fireman on said vessel, caused by the blowing out of a steam pipe connected with the engine boiler, while the vessel was in the Mississippi river at the port of New Orleans.
The evidence was not such as to call for a finding that the shipowner was chargeable with any negligence with reference to the pipe which burst. Evidence showed that such a general survey and overhauling of the vessel as is customarily made every four years was made in August, 1918, by Lloyds' surveyors at New Orleans, and that at that time very expensive repairs were made on the vessel, and the steam pipes from the boilers to the engine were then annealed and tested by hydraulic pressure to double the working pressure and were then found to be tight and sound in every respect. Lloyds' surveyors again examined the vessel in August, 1919, giving her at that time, as stated by one of the surveyors, 'a general look-over.' No defect in the steam pipes was then noticeable, and questions then put to the vessel's engineer as to how its machinery and boilers were working elicited nothing which suggested the existence of a defect in the steam pipes. Expert evidence was adduced, which tended to prove that such a pipe as the one in question may be weakened or fractured by what is known as 'water hammer,' which is the force or blow to which a pipe containing water is subjected by a rush of steam pushing the solid mass of water, and that the strength of a pipe may be impaired as a result of frequently repeated water hammering, or it may be burst by one operation of that force, if the valve is opened suddenly and steam is let into a pipe in which water has accumulated. Unless steam is let in suddenly, a sound pipe, frequently subjected to water hammer, could reasonably be expected to withstand that force several years before breaking or becoming unsafe.
No one except the deceased was present when the casualty which caused his death occurred. It was not disclosed to what extent or how that pipe had been subjected to water hammer. It was exhibited to the trial court. The following was said in the opinion rendered by the presiding judge:
'Even after the pipe blew out, an examination of it has failed to show any defect in the pipe, much less one which could have been discovered by the most careful examination.'
While the evidence did not furnish any satisfactory basis for a conclusion as to what was responsible for the bursting of the pipe, it was consistent with the theory that, shortly before it burst, it was subjected to undue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc.
...would satisfy the obligation to provide a seaman with a seaworthy vessel. Compare The Tawmie, 5 Cir., 1936, 80 F.2d 792 and Burton v. Greig, 5 Cir., 1921, 271 F. 271, with The H. A. Scandrett, 2 Cir., 1937, 87 F.2d 708. In The Fullerton, 9 Cir., 1908, 167 F. 1, 8, 11, the court seems to hav......
-
Dixon v. United States
...seaman had to prove negligence to prevail in an unseaworthiness action. The Henry B. Fiske, D.C.D.Mass.1905, 141 F. 188; Burton v. Greig, 5 Cir., 1921, 271 F. 271, although there is a dictum to the contrary in Rainey v. New York & P. S. S. Co., 9 Cir., 1914, 216 F. 449, L.R.A.1916A, 1149. S......
-
Nolan v. General Seafoods Corporation
...2 Cir., 87 F.2d 708; Sabine Towing Co., Inc., v. Brennan, 5 Cir., 72 F.2d 490, 494; The Cricket, 9 Cir., 71 F.2d 61, 63; Burton v. Greig, 5 Cir., 271 F. 271. Cf. Plamals v. S. S. Pinar Del Rio, 277 U.S. 151, 154, 155, 48 S.Ct. 457, 72 L.Ed. 827; The James E. Ferris, D.C., 1 F.Supp. 1018; Jo......
-
Pittsburgh SS Co. v. Palo
...The shipowner is not an insurer of the safety of his seamen, and the burden of establishing negligence rests upon plaintiff. Burton v. Greig, 271 F. 271 (C. C. A. 5). In the instant case we are of the opinion that this burden has not been sustained; but before pursuing this point further it......