Churchill v. United Fruit Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1923
• Docket Number: 2013.
• Citation: 294 F. 400
• Parties: CHURCHILL v. UNITED FRUIT CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

294 F. 400

CHURCHILL v. UNITED FRUIT CO.

No. 2013.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

November 14, 1923

James W. Sullivan, of Lynn, Mass., and Thos. A. Henry, of Salem Mass., for plaintiff.

Storey Thorndike, Palmer & Dodge and R. G. Dodge, all of Boston Mass., for defendant.

MORTON District Judge.

The principles of law underlying this case were carefully considered and elaborately stated in Connors v. Cunard S.S. Co., 204 Mass. 310, 90 N.E. 601, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 171, 134 Am.St.Rep. 662, 17 Ann.Cas. 1051. Speaking generally, common carriers, being obliged to accept as passengers all persons except those likely to annoy or endanger other passengers, are required to conduct their business with regard to the general run of travelers, and are not required to make provision for special and unusual cases. If a person who is ill chooses to travel, he has, in the absence of some special agreement with the carrier, no ground of complaint because the carrier did not make adequate provision for people in his condition; for one reason, the fare paid is not based on such service. If he declares his condition when offering himself as a passenger, and the carrier with knowledge of it accepts him, the facts may show a special contract or undertaking by the carrier to furnish extra care and attention; and a similar undertaking might perhaps be inferred from the acceptance as a passenger of a person obviously unable to take care of himself. If a passenger becomes incapacitated en route, the burden is thrown upon the carrier to take such measures for his safety and protection as are reasonably within the carrier's power. A doctor has to be carried on certain vessels, because required by the Act of August 2, 1882 (22 Stat. 188; U.S Comp. St. Sec. 8002); but, without some special undertaking of the kind just referred to, the carrier is under no duty to see that passengers who appear to be able to look after themselves receive proper medical treatment. It undertakes no guardianship of passengers in respect to their health. They are free to call the doctor or not, and to follow his advice or not. O'Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co., 154 Mass. 272, 28 N.E. 266, 13 L.R.A. 329. If the doctor attends them, he does so as their physician. Neither the vessel nor her owners are liable for his negligence in treating his patients. The Great Northern, 251 F. 826, 163 C.C.A. 660 (C.C.A. 9th).

The declaration in this case is loosely drawn and contains many broad statements imputing negligence or breach of duty to the defendant in general terms. Such pleadings are not easy to deal with upon demurrer. The question which they present is less one of specific allegations than of gathering from the paper as a whole the substantive case or defense which it is intended to set up. I have so regarded the present declaration, and have been assisted in so doing by the statements of plaintiff's counsel at the argument on the demurrer.

As I understand the plaintiff's position, the declaration is not intended to allege a failure on the part of the defendant to exercise reasonable care for Churchill, if he had been in ordinary health. The negligence relied upon in the first count is a failure to give Churchill such care as his illness required. There are no allegations in this or in any of the counts that reasonable requests by him for assistance were refused, or that he appeared to be, or was, mentally incapacitated from looking after his health, or that there was any agreement for extra care at the time when he became a passenger. Upon the principles of law above stated this count does not, in my opinion, state any...