Campbell v. N.J. Dry-Dock & Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1898
• Citation: 61 N.J.L. 382,39 A. 658
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. NEW JERSEY DRY-DOCK & TRANSPORTATION CO.

39 A. 658

61 N.J.L. 382

CAMPBELL

v. NEW JERSEY DRY-DOCK & TRANSPORTATION CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 28, 1898.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Action by James Campbell against the New Jersey Dry-Dock & Transportation Company for personal injuries. Plaintiff had a verdict, and the trial judge granted a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. Rule made absolute, and a new trial ordered.

Argued November term, 1897, before MAGIE, C. J., and DEPUE, GUMMERE, and LUDLOW, JJ.

Johnson & German, for plaintiff.

Frederick C. Marsh, for defendant.

GUMMERE, J. The plaintiff is a ship carpenter in the employ of the defendant company. While at work with other employé of the company, lowering a tank into the hold of the Wilkesbarre, a vessel which was laid up in the dry dock for repairs, one of the hooks on the tackle which was being used for lowering the tank broke, letting the tank down on his hand, and crushing it. The liability of the defendant for this injury is sought to be established on the ground that it failed to discharge the duty which it owed to the plaintiff of furnishing proper tackle for the work in which he was engaged, and of inspecting and keeping it in repair, and that this failure was the cause of the accident. The testimony of the plaintiff's own witnesses shows that this claim is without support. From that testimony it appears that the defendant company's tackle and hooks were kept in a shanty in the company's yard; that the work was being done under the supervision of one John Lyons, who is styled the "boss rigger"; that Lyons sent two of the men who were under him, Long and Shields, to get the tackle and hooks to be used in lowering the tank; that Shields went to the company's shanty, and got tackle and hooks from there; but that Long, instead of following his example, picked up a tackle and hooks which he found lying on the deck of the Wilkesbarre, and which belonged to that vessel, and not to the defendant corporation; that both sets of tackle and hooks were used in lowering the tank, one on each end of it; and that it was the hook on the tackle which was picked up by Long on the deck of the Wilkesbarre which broke, and let the tank down on the plaintiff's hand. These facts make it clear that the defendant did not fail in the discharge of the duty which it owed to the plaintiff, of using reasonable care to provide safe and proper tools for his use in his work, and to keep them safe. It...