Defrier v. The Nicaragua

• Decision Date: 10 April 1897
• Docket Number: 764.
• Citation: 81 F. 745
• Parties: DEFRIER et al. v. THE NICARAGUA.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

81 F. 745

DEFRIER et al. v. THE NICARAGUA.

No. 764.

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama.

April 10, 1897

Smith &amp Gaynor, for libelants.

Pillans Torrey & Hanaw, for claimant.

TOULMIN District Judge.

A person who undertakes, though only on that particular occasion, to carry for hire, without special contract, incurs the responsibility of a common carrier. 2 Add.Cont. p. 715 and note. A contract for passage by water implies something more than ship room and transportation. It includes reasonable comforts, necessaries, and kindness, and suitable food and the common means of relief in cases of sickness. Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason, 242, 5 Fed.Cas 413. It is the duty of the common carrier by water to provide his passengers with comfortable accommodations, and with a sufficient supply of wholesome food, unless there is a contract to the contrary or a fair understanding to the contrary; and the carrier must subject his passengers to no suffering or inconvenience which can be avoided by reasonable care and effort. While the carrier has no right to carry an additional passenger when his vessel is already so full that by the additional passenger other passengers are made uncomfortable, yet the added passenger might have no right to complain, and would not if he knew what annoyance and discomfort he must encounter by going on board. 1 Pars.Shipp.&Adm. p. 615.

In view of these general principles, let us consider this case. The evidence does not establish to my satisfaction that there was any special contract for passage; that is, that the contract provided for any particular kind of passage, or specified the character of accommodations to be furnished. That first-class passage and accommodations were not to be furnished is clear and that the libelants so understood it is equally clear. But the contract implied something more than transportation. It included reasonable comforts and food,-- reasonable in view of the circumstances; reasonable in view of the fact that the vessel had only cabin accommodations for a few passengers, and these were for first-class or cabin passengers, and in view of the fact that the vessel was mainly a freight vessel, and on this occasion with a full cargo of fruit in her hold and below decks, with no berths or below-deck room for passengers. These facts must have been well known to the libelants before they engaged their passage; at least, before they paid their passage money and concluded their contract for transportation. They had been two days aboard the vessel. They had seen the cargo coming aboard and being stored away. They saw what the cabin accommodations were, and had not undertaken to occupy them, or to claim the right to do so. They saw that the vessel had no other comfortable accommodations for passengers, and they had contented themselves for the two days they had been aboard with deck passage and accommodations, as far as ship room was concerned. So far as the evidence shows, they made no inquiry as to where they were to lodge, or to be protected from the weather. When in the confusion and crowding by the presence of a large number of men engaged in loading the vessel, and also by the cargo itself, they did ask, when at Livingston, if they were not to be better treated, and were told that, when they got off to sea, they would be cared for, or something to that effect. But in all this we hear no complaint about the absence of bedding and their lodging place, and no demand for cabin accommodations. Now, in view of all these circumstances, mu opinion is that there was a fair understanding that their ship room and quarters were to be on deck, and that these, under the circumstances, were to be deemed reasonable accommodations. They doubtless would have been comfortable accommodations, at...