Gabrielson v. Waydell
| Decision Date | 26 April 1895 |
| Citation | 67 F. 342 |
| Parties | GABRIELSON v. WAYDELL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
George P. Gordel, for plaintiff.
Robert D. Benedict, for defendants.
The principal question in this case is whether the defendants, as owners of the bark Rebecca Caruana, are liable to the plaintiff, a seaman, for injuries violently done to him when sick, by the master, on the high seas. The plaintiff brought suit in the courts of the state for the same injuries, and a judgment in his favor was reversed by the court of appeals as not maintainable against the defendants. Gabrielson v Waydell, 135 N.Y. 1, 31 N.E. 969. A judgment on default was afterwards taken by the defendants in the court below for their costs. That judgment is set up and relied upon here as a bar to this suit, or a conclusive authority against it with the statute of limitations of the state. That the judgment is not a conclusive bar is clear, for it was for costs only on default, and not upon the merits. Not being conclusive as a bar, as the cause of action did not accrue within the state, it can be nothing more than an authority of a high court entitled to great respect. As such it was based upon conclusions reached by a bare majority against a strong dissent, and in express repudiation of principles relating to agency and service held in somewhat analogous cases by the supreme court of the United States, which this court is, of course, bound to follow. Railway Co. v. Ross, 112 U.S. 377, 5 Sup.Ct. 184. By the statutes of this state actions for assault and battery are limited to two years. Code, Sec. 384. That such statute applies to the courts of the United States sitting in the state seems to be well settled. Metcalf v. City of Watertown, 153 U.S. 671 14 Sup.Ct. 947; Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U.S. 610, 15 Sup.Ct. 217. So, if this was such an action, as it was not brought within two years, that statute would seem to be a bar. But the action may be considered as, and recovery has been had, rather for breach of duty of good treatment and care than for violation of the person, and as such it does not seem to be barred.
That the master of a ship at sea is agent for the owners as to everything about the crew, or that the seamen are entitled to care and cure in sickness from disease or injury, at their expense, within reasonable bounds, is not disputed or disputable. Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mason, 541, Fed Cas. No. 6,047; Peterson v. The Chandos, 4 Fed. 645; Desty, Adm. Sec. 154. What was to be done for the plaintiff in this behalf must be done by the captain, as the agent of the defendants, in command of their ship for them. If in any case an agent could represent the principal about the treatment of a servant, a shipmaster would seem to represent the owners about the treatment of a seaman. In Croucher v. Oakman, 3 Allen, 185, the owners were held liable to the mate for the consequential damages from shooting by the master. In The A. Heaton, before Mr. Justice Gray and Judge Colt in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts, 43 F. 592, the schooner was held liable to a seaman for the negligence of the captain about the rigging, against an argument for the owners that they were not liable for the acts of the captain. In the opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, the authorities, including the cases afterwards disregarded by the court of appeals, as before mentioned, were thoroughly reviewed; and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. Alpha SS Corporation
...Ion, 153 F. 659 (D. C. E. D. Pa.); The Vueltabajo, 163 F. 594 (D. C. Ala.); The David Evans, 187 F. 775 (C. C. A. 9); Gabrielson v. Waydell, 67 F. 342 (C. C. E. D. N. Y.); Wolfe v. Thomas, 268 F. 464 (C. C. A. 6); see, also, article in 19 Harv. Law Rev. 418. Gabrielson v. Waydell, 135 N. Y.......
-
The Troop
... ... Olson v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co (D.C.) 96 ... F. 111, affirmed in 104 F. 574, 44 C.C.A. 51; City of Norwalk ... (D.C.) 55 F. 98; Gabrielson v. Waydell (C.C.) 67 F ... 342. Nor is it to be presumed that the learned justice who ... intended to discredit the views theretofore expressed by ... ...
-
Encarnacion v. Jamison
...care of the seamen under him is a risk assumed by the seamen for the consequences of which the owners are not responsible (Gabrielson v. Waydell [C. C.] 67 F. 342; The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175, 23 S. Ct. 483, 47 L. Ed. 760), there remains in it a vestigial remnant of the once all-compreh......
-
Olson v. Oregon Coal & Navigation Co.
...and care in case of injury or sickness, and for his neglect in any of those particulars the owner is liable. The cases of Gabrielson v. Waydell (C.C.) 67 F. 342; The A. Heaton (C.C.) 43 F. 592; Anderson v. Rence, 14 Sawy. 476, 46 F. 805; and The Chandos, 6 Sawy. 546, 4 F. 645,-- were cases ......