Considine v. Black Diamond Steamship Corp.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 57-396. |
| Citation | 163 F. Supp. 107 |
| Parties | James CONSIDINE v. BLACK DIAMOND STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, Skibs A/S Oilexpress. SIGURD & COMPANY A/S v. NACIREMA OPERATING COMPANY, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Nathan Greenberg, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Thomas H. Walsh, Boston, Mass., for Black Diamond S.S. Corp., Skibs A/S Oilexpress and Sigurd & Co. A/S.
John Kimball, Jr., Boston, Mass., for Nacirema Operating Co.
In this action a stevedore in the hold, unloading the ship, was injured by reason of an allegedly defective "chiseltruck," a hydraulically-operated-platformed, wheeled device for handling heavy bales, etc. The defendant shipowner, and the impleaded stevedoring third-party defendant, move for summary judgment. The plaintiff consents to the motion so far as the counts for negligence are concerned. Cf. Berti v. Compagnie de Navigation Cyprien Fabre, 2 Cir., 213 F.2d 397. With respect to the counts for unseaworthiness the record would require a finding that the truck was the property of the stevedoring company, brought on the ship by it, and that vessels do not carry such equipment. The defendants take the position that the truck, not being substitute, or ship-type equipment, and not owned by the ship, is not subject to the absolute warranty of seaworthiness. Cf. Berryhill v. Pacific Far East Line, 9 Cir., 238 F.2d 385, certiorari denied 354 U.S. 938, 77 S.Ct. 1400, 1 L.Ed.2d 1537. I have some sympathy with defendants' position. A stevedore temporarily operating his employer's truck on board a ship is performing no more dangerous activity than if he were operating the same truck dockside. I see no contrary logic, or social necessity, let alone legislative policy. But it seems to me these questions have already been essentially determined. Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson, 347 U.S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.Ed. 798, affirming per curiam 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 478; Rogers v. United States Lines, 347 U.S. 984, 74 S.Ct. 849, 98 L.Ed. 1120, reversing per curiam, 3 Cir., 205 F.2d 57. Cf. Halecki v. United New York, etc., Ass'n, 2 Cir., 251 F.2d 708. Perhaps my ability to draw the line in this situation is no better than the Maine roofer laying shingles on a day the fog was so thick he did not realize he had gone past the edge, but I can perceive here no rational stopping place.1
There remains a question of how the case is to be tried. Judge Wyzanski's exhaustive analysis in Jenkins v. Roderick,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huff v. Matson Navigation Company
...347 U. S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.Ed. 798; Rogers v. U. S. Lines, 347 U.S. 984, 74 S.Ct. 849, 98 L.Ed. 1120; Considine v. Black Diamond Steamship Company, D.C., 163 F.Supp. 107, 108." The cases cited above lend force to the statement made. In Petterson, the Supreme Court followed the circui......
-
Williams v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Cal. No. 77
...States Lines, 347 U.S. 984, 74 S.Ct. 849, 98 L.Ed. 1120 (1954), reversing 205 F.2d 57 (2 Cir. 1953); and Considine v. Black Diamond S.S. Corp., 163 F.Supp. 107, 110 (D. Mass.1958). Yet, to the same extent as the hypothetical longshoreman on the ship possessing its own crane, he was "doing a......
-
McKnight v. NM Paterson & Sons, Limited
...246 F.2d 875, 876. 4 One case on the District level seems to extend the doctrine of the Petterson case. In Considine v. Black Diamond S.S. Corp., D.C.D.Mass.1958, 163 F.Supp. 107, the plaintiff was operating a "chisel-truck" while unloading the vessel, when, because of a defect in the truck......
-
Reed v. The Yaka
...There are at least two recent cases whose holding clearly encompass the present situation. The first is Considine v. Black Diamond Steamship Corp., D.C.D.Mass.1958, 163 F.Supp. 107. There a longshoreman was injured by a defective "chisel truck", a hydraulically-operated truck with a platfor......