Cheatham v. Red River Line, 12,963.
| Citation | 56 F. 248 |
| Decision Date | 30 May 1893 |
| Docket Number | 12,963. |
| Parties | CHEATHAM v. RED RIVER LINE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Leonard & Marks, for libelant.
Howe & Prentiss, for claimant.
This is a cause in admiralty brought by the tutor of the minor children of James Brooks, who is alleged to have been drowned through the negligence of the officers of the Valley Queen. The suit is brought against the owners and the master. The damages sought to be recovered are $5,000 damages alleged to have been suffered by the father previously to his death, and $5,000 alleged to have been suffered by the children in the loss of support, service, and society.
The father, James Brooks, who was drowned, was a deck hand hired for the round trip from New Orleans to Shreveport and back. He was drowned at East Point, a point on Red river where the Valley Queen put off some freight. As to precisely what occurred at East Point there is a conflict of testimony; the witnesses for libelant testifying that the incorrect order was given, to take in the stage plank, and the witnesses for the claimant testifying that the correct order was given, to let go the stage plank. There is also an issue presented as to the competency of the fall tender and still another, as to the neglect of the master in not attempting to rescue the father, James Brooks, while he was struggling in the water.
The view which I have taken of the whole case renders it unnecessary for me to review the testimony upon either of these three points as to which the testimony is so contradictory, for, as it seems to me, the case must be decided for the libelant upon the facts which are undisputed. These uncontroverted facts are that the boat stopped, and was not moored, or in any way tied, to the bank, and was held at her place simply by the revolution of her wheel; that the stage plank was let down, and Brooks and others ordered to take off the freight which was to be delivered at that point that for this purpose he went across the stage plank, aided in delivering the freight, and was returning to the boat across the stage plank, when it was, by the 'fall,' tipped up, one end falling down into the water, whereby the said Brooks fell into the river, and was drowned. The water in the Red river was at a very high point.
The question presented upon these conceded facts is, was it such prudence or diligence as a boat ought to have exercised in behalf of its employes, who must cross and recross the stage plank, to stop and require of them the delivery of freight without the boat being moored, or in some way confined, save by the force of its own revolving wheel? The imminent danger under such circumstances is that, with a swollen river and accelerated current, there could be no certainty that the stage plank could be properly held to allow those who had started to come across to complete their coming; that almost necessarily the turbulence and resistless force of the water would cause such haste in the giving of orders, and confusion in their execution, as, according to the testimony on either side, existed in this case, and such as should have been foreseen, and shows that the landing without mooring really caused the disaster. Where the water is so high it is so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rohlfing v. Moses Akiona, Limited
...explains Beach v. City of St. Joseph, 192 Mich. 296, 158 N.W. 1045, Fike v. Peters, 175 Okl. 334, 52 P.2d 700, and Cheatham v. Red River Line, 56 F. 248 (D.C.E.D.La.), rev'd on other points 5 Cir., 60 F. 517. Under our holding, supra, such cases are not However, a second proposition has bee......
-
Avery v. Collins
... ... 144, 147, 37 S.Ct. 41, 61 L.Ed. 208, L ... R. A. 1917E, 1050; Cheatham v. Red River Line, 56 F ... 248, 60 F. 517, 9 C. C. A. 124; St. Louis, ... ...
-
In Re: On Motion To Retax Costs
...Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Capital Trust Co., Admr., etc., 242 U.S. 144, 147, 37 S.Ct. 41, 61 L.Ed. 208, L. R. A. 1917E, 1050; Cheatham v. Red River Line, 56 F. 248, 60 F. 517, 9 C. C. 124; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Dawson, 68 Ark. 1, 4, 56 S.W. 46. In the case at bar, the very severity of ......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Robertson
...there is no evidence of conscious suffering, and the verdict should have been for nominal damages only. 43 L. R. A. 568; 145 Mass. 281; 56 F. 248; 125 Mass. 90; 145 U.S. 4. The court's first instruction is erroneous, because there was no evidence on which to base it, nor evidence that the c......