Dougherty v. Thompson-Lockhart Co.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | 14-1913. |
| Citation | 211 F. 224 |
| Parties | DOUGHERTY v. THOMPSON-LOCKHART CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
James J. Breen and Willard M. Harris, both of Philadelphia, Pa for claimant.
Howard M. Long and Charles S. Wesley, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
On November 21, 1910, the claimant, William Dougherty, was in the employ of the Thompson-Lockhart Company as the master of a barge or scow, and in the course of his service suffered an injury on that day. Asserting the negligence of the company he brought suit in the common pleas of Philadelphia county but proceedings for limitation of liability were afterwards begun in the district court, and the dispute was thereby transferred to the federal tribunal. No other claimant or creditor has appeared. Several preliminary steps have been taken, but they need not be referred to; it is enough to say now that the parties and their witnesses appeared in court recently and were fully heard upon the merits, both sides submitting the whole controversy for final determination.
The first question in order of importance is whether the company is chargeable with negligence. The facts are as follows:
The Thompson-Lockhart Company is a Pennsylvania corporation, and none of its officers was directly connected with the claimant's injury. The tug 'J. McAteer' and the scow were both owned by the company, and were engaged as a tow in carrying rubbish down the Schuylkill river for the city of Philadelphia. Both vessels were properly manned and equipped. Dougherty, who was the master of the scow and had been so employed for about three weeks, was the only person on board that vessel; no further help being usual or necessary. Toward noon on the morning in question the tug and the loaded scow were proceeding down the river bound for a point on the eastern shore near Penrose Ferry Bridge; the tide being ebb and the day fair. The scow was lashed to the port side of the tug in the usual manner, being held in place by lines at the bow and the stern, and moved by a running or towing line that was made fast more nearly amidships on both vessels. All the lines were provided with the usual eye or loop at one end. The eyes of the bow and the stern lines were laid around cleats on the deck of the scow, and the loose ends were made fast upon the deck of the tug. The eye of the running line was similarly adjusted, but upon the deck of the tug, and the loose end was fastened around a cleat on the deck of the scow. When the lines were not in use, the bow and the stern lines were hauled in upon the tug, and the running line was hauled in upon the scow.
When the tow reached a point about two city squares above its destination, the tug was obliged to shift her place and to take the scow upon her starboard side in order to make the landing. In the proper execution of this maneuver, all the lines were case off, the bow and the stern lines were hauled in upon the tug, and the running line was hauled in upon the scow. The scow moved along slowly by her own momentum aided somewhat by the tide, while the tug dropped astern and then came forward close to the port side of the scow. Her steam was shut off, but she also was moving slowly by momentum and the favoring tide. The next step was to fasten the lines again, and while this was going on the claimant suffered the injury complained of. Just how the unfortunate accident occurred, the testimony does not distinctly disclose; the claimant himself did not know, and the evidence leaves it in some uncertainty. But in my opinion the negligence of the company was not proved, while the negligence (or at least the misfortune) of the claimant seems to be the probable, and the sufficient, explanation. It is clear enough that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudspeth v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc.
...attention during such period as the duty continues. Whitney v. Olsen, 108 F. 292, 297 (C.C.A.) and cases cited; Dougherty v. Thompson-Lockhart Co., 211 F. 224, 227 (D.C.)." Similar generalizations can be found in other American cases.5 In none of these cases, however, does it appear that th......
-
Calmar Corporation v. Taylor
...attention during such period as the duty continues, Whitney v. Olsen, 9 Cir., 108 F. 292, 297 and cases cited; Dougherty v. Thompson-Lockhart Co., D.C., 211 F. 224, 227. In The Osceola, supra, this Court reserved the point whether the duty of maintenance and cure extends beyond the duration......
-
Loverich v. Warner Co.
...attention during such period as the duty continues, Whitney v. Olsen, 9 Cir., 108 F. 292, 297 and cases cited; Dougherty v. Thompson-Lockhart Co., D.C., 211 F. 224, 227. * * * The reasons underlying the rule, to which reference must be made in defining it, are those enumerated in the classi......
-
United States v. Robinson
...attention during such period as the duty continues. Whitney v. Olsen, 9 Cir., 108 F. 292, 297 and cases cited; Dougherty v. Thompson-Lockhart Co., D.C., 211 F. 224, 227." The obligation for maintenance and cure does not extend indefinitely when he is suffering from an incurable disease or a......