Carlisle Packing Co v. Sandanger
| Decision Date | 29 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 195,195 |
| Citation | 66 L.Ed. 927,42 S.Ct. 475,259 U.S. 255 |
| Parties | CARLISLE PACKING CO. v. SANDANGER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. J. Harry Covington, of Washingto, D. C., and James A. Kerr and Evan S. McCord, both of Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 256-257 intentionally omitted] Mr. Maurice McMicken, of Seattle, Wash., for respondent.
The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed a judgment against petitioner Packing Company rendered by the trial court upon a verdict for damages on account of injuries which respondent suffered while employed upon petitioner's motorboat afloat in navigable Alaskan waters.
Respondent claimed that prior to the departure of the boat upon a trip intended to occupy perhaps six or eight hours, petitioner or its agents negligently filled with gasoline and placed thereon a can which ordinarily contained coal oil (and was so labeled) for use according to the prevailing custom in those waters to start fires in the small stove where meals were cooked and water heated. Without knowledge of the substitution, respondent poured the gasoline upon the firewood, applied a match, an explosion resulted, and he was badly burned. He further claimed that no life preservers had been placed on board, and that his injuries were aggravated by delay attending search for one before he jumped into the water to extinguish his flaming clothes.
The trial court held 'the basis of the action is negligence,' and instructed by jury according to the common-law rules in respect thereto. It said that if petitioner or its authorized agents negligently filled the can with gasoline and placed it upon the boat, and if by reason of such negligence respondent suffered injury, he was entitled to recover compensatory damages therefor, provided he himself had not been guilty of contributory negligence. Further, that if the injuries resulting directly from the explosion were aggravated because no life preservers had been placed on board, then additional compensation could be awarded for such aggravation. Also that if the explosion occurred without petitioner's negligence, but the absence of life preservers caused aggravation of respondent's injuries, he would be entitled to recover for such injuries as resulted directly from the negligence in respect of the life preservers, but not for those caused solely by the explosion.
We have heretofore announced the general doctrine concerning rights and liabilities of the parties when one of a crew sustains injuries while on a vessel in navigable waters:
'The vessel and her owners are liable, in case a seaman falls sick, or is wounded, in the service of the ship, to the extent of his maintenance and cure, and to his wages, at least so long as the voyage is continued. * * *
'The vessel and her owner are, both a by English and American law, liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship. * * *
'All the members of the crew, except perhaps the master, are, as between themselves, fellow servants, and hence seamen cannot recover for injuries sustained through the negligence of another member of the crew beyond the expense of their maintenance and cure.
'The seaman is not allowed to recover an indemnity for the negligence of the master, or any member of the crew, but is entitled to maintenance and cure, whether the injuries were received by negligence or accident.'
The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175, 23 Sup. Ct. 483, 487, 47 L. Ed. 760; Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., 247 U. S. 372, 380, 381, 38 Sup. Ct. 501, 62 L. Ed. 1171.
The general rules of the maritime law apply whether the proceeding be instituted in an admiralty or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. Cormack Co
...Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149, 159, 40 S.Ct. 438, 439, 64 L.Ed. 834, 11 A.L.R. 1145; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259, 42 S.Ct. 475, 476, 66 L.Ed. 927; Messel v. Foundation Co., 274 U.S. 427, 434, 47 S.Ct. 695, 698, 71 L.Ed. 1135; and see Schuede v. Zeni......
-
Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp
...315—332 (1957); Tetreault, Seamen, Seaworthiness, and the Rights of Harbor Workers, 39 Cornell L.Q. 381. 4 Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 42 S.Ct. 475, 66 L.Ed. 927. There it was said, '(W)e think the trial court might have told the jury that without regard to negligence t......
-
The Arizona v. Anelich
...Court. See Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., supra, 247 U.S. 372, 379, 380, 38 S.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259, 42 S.Ct. 475, 66 L.Ed. 927; Pacific Steamship Co. v. Peterson, supra, 278 U.S. 130, 134, 49 S.Ct. 75, 73 L.Ed. 220; Lindgren v. Unit......
-
Seas Shipping Co v. Sieracki
...negligence, assumption of risk and the fellow servant rule. Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., supra; cf. Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 42 S.Ct. 475, 66 L.Ed. 92 Because rationalizing the liability as one attached by law to the relation of shipowner and seaman, where this resu......