Grimsley v. Hankins
| Decision Date | 30 April 1891 |
| Citation | 46 F. 400 |
| Parties | GRIMSLEY v. HANKINS. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Smith & Gaynor, for libelant.
McIntosh & Rich, for defendant.
The libelant sues to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the death of her minor son, William L. Grimsley which was occasioned by the explosion of the boiler of a steam-tug owned by the defendant, and on which said minor was lawfully employed, as averred in the libel. The husband of libelant and father of said minor, who was, at the time, the engineer on said steamer, also lost his life by said explosion. Libelant avers her right to maintain this action and that she sues under and by virtue of a statute of the state of Alabama, which provides that, when the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act or omission or negligence of any person or persons, his or their servants or agents, the mother, in case of the death of the father, may maintain an action of damages therefor. Code Ala. Sec. 2588.
The libel avers that the explosion was caused by a defect in the works, machinery, or plant connected with and used in running and operating the steamer, and that said defect existed by the negligence of defendant, his servants and agents; and the libel further avers that the explosion, by which said minor came to his death, was caused by the negligence of the engineer in charge of the machinery of said steamer. There are exceptions to the libel on the ground that it sets forth no admiralty or maritime cause of action, and alleges no fact which can give this court jurisdiction. An answer is also filed, which, in substance and effect, takes issue on every material allegation of the libel. The exceptions are overruled. See The E.B. Ward, 17 F. 456; The Garland, 5 F 924; Holmes v. Railway Co., Id. 75.
I find from the evidence that the death of William L. Grimsley was caused by the explosion of the boiler of the steam-tug on which he was employed as cook; that he was so employed with the knowledge and consent of his father, with whom he lived, and who was the engineer on the tug at the time of the said employment, and at the time of the unfortunate accident, and had been such engineer for some time previous thereto; that the tug, at the time of the explosion, was going up the Mobile river, to engage in her regular occupation of towing; and that there were on board the master and pilot, engineer, cook, and fireman. 'The explosion of a boiler of a steam-boat causing injuries is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of owners and officers;' and it devolves on the owner to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from the fact of explosion. The Reliance, 2 F. 249; Posey v. Scoville, 10 F. 140; Rose v. Transportation Co., 11 F. 438. The presumption of negligence may be rebutted in this case by its being shown that the defendant used proper diligence in furnishing and maintaining in repair suitable machinery, reasonable safe, with which to operate the tug, and in the employment of officers and servants, who had ordinary fitness and competency for the performance of their duties. The defendant did not covenant to furnish machinery and appliances that were safe beyond a contingency, nor did he warrant the competency of fellow-servants. But he was required to use due care and reasonable diligence for the protection of his employes. 'The law devolves on employers the duty to use ordinary care and diligence to furnish safe and suitable instrumentalities and appliances for the use of the employes in their business, and to keep the ways, works, machinery, and plant free from defects which are dangerous, so as not to expose the employees to unnecessary perils,--such care and diligence as men of ordinary prudence would exercise under like circumstances. ' Wilson v. Railroad Co., 85 Ala. 269, 4 South, Rep. 701; Railroad Co. v. Ross, 112 U.S. 377, 5 S.Ct. 184; Garrahy v. Railroad Co., 25 F. 258, and notes.
The proof shows that, within a year prior to the explosion, the boiler, machinery, and appliances were inspected, approved and licensed for one year by the government inspectors. But there is evidence which tends to show that about two weeks before the explosion there was some derangement of the appliances for supplying the boiler with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Joe Boom Co., Ltd.
... ... other states. (The Queen, 40 F. 694; The Victoria, 13 F. 43; ... The Ravensdale, 63 F. 624; Grimsley v. Hankins, 46 ... F. 400; Red River Line v. Cheatham, 60 F. 517, 9 C ... C. A. 124; Hollis v. Widener, 228 Pa. 466, 139 Am ... St. 1010, ... ...
-
Murray v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co.
...Gerrity v. The Kate Cann (D.C.) 2 Fed. 241; Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U.S. 626, 26 L.Ed. 1192; The Strabo (D.C.) 90 F. 110; Grimsley v. Hankins (D.C.) 46 F. 400; Levy v. McCartee, 6 Pet. 108, 8 L.Ed. Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1, 19 Sup.Ct. 583, 43 L.Ed. 873; Cowhick v. Shingle, ......
-
Stone v. Texas Co.
...Central R. R. v. Phillips, 55 Ill. 194; Bahr v. Lombard, 53 N. J. Law, 233, 21 A. 190, 23 A. 167 (explosion of oil pipe); Grimsley v. Hankins (D. C.) 46 F. 400; 3 Shearman & Redfield on Negligence (6th Ed.) § 689, and notes. caution should be taken to apply this rule according to Page v. Ca......
-
Beebe v. St. Louis Transit Company
...of the negligence of the defendant company deceased received a heavy shock of electricity and was killed. It is true that in Grimsley v. Hankins, 46 F. 400, it held that a steamboat boiler explosion, causing injuries, is prima-facie evidence of negligence on the part of the owners and offic......