Hagans v. Ellerman and Bucknall Steamship Co.

• Citation: 196 F. Supp. 593
• Decision Date: 11 September 1961
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 24578.
• Parties: James HAGANS v. ELLERMAN AND BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Ltd. v. ATLANTIC AND GULF STEVEDORES, INC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

196 F. Supp. 593

James HAGANS v. ELLERMAN AND BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Ltd. v. ATLANTIC AND GULF STEVEDORES, INC.

Civ. A. No. 24578.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

September 11, 1961.

Freedman, Landy & Lorry, by Milton M. Borowsky, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Krusen, Evans & Byrne, by Mark D. Alspach, Philadelphia, Pa., for Ellerman.

Davis, Marshall & Crumlish, by Francis E. Marshall, Philadelphia, Pa., for Atlantic.

WOOD, District Judge.

At the outset, it is advisable to point out that all counsel for the respective parties agreed that the factual situation in this case was one of first impression. Insofar as the legal consequences arising therefrom are concerned, no specific case in point was available in this district or elsewhere. The facts are as follows:

On July 1, 1957, James Hagans, the plaintiff, was one of twenty-two longshoremen employed to unload the "S. S. City of London," which was moored on the south side of Pier 38 in the City of Philadelphia. He was an employee of Atlantic and Gulf Stevedores, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Atlantic") which had contracted with Ellerman and Bucknall Steamship Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Ellerman"), the owner of the ship, to perform the unloading operation.

The cargo involved consisted of bags of sand, each weighing about one hundred pounds. Eleven of the longshoremen were in the hold of the ship and their duty was to place twenty to twenty-five bags of sand in a sling which, by means of a winch, lifted the bags from the hold up and over the side of the ship. At this stage, the load of sand was lowered onto a four-wheel flat truck on the apron of the pier. Another longshoreman operating what was termed as a jitney would hook on to the load truck and pull it through a large door in the side of the pier building which abutted on the apron and transport it to a point on the north wall of the building about one hundred feet away from the door. The jitney at that point would be removed from the truck and return to pick up another load truck on the pier. In the meantime, eight longshoremen, of which the plaintiff Hagans was one, were engaged in unloading the bags of sand from the flat truck and piling them within a few feet of where the flat truck was left. Hagans slipped and fell removing the bags of sand from the truck and piling them within the pier, as aforesaid. The accident occurred at least one hundred feet within and beyond the point on the pier where the sand was picked up by the jitney.

It is obvious that an immediate legal question arose as to whether the operation being performed by Hagans at this point within the pier building was so far removed from the actual unloading operation of the ship as to bring it within the maritime law and whether Hagans was entitled to the protection of the doctrine of unseaworthiness.

We first consider the argument of defendant Ellerman. It states vigorously that Hagans' injuries were consummated on land on the theory that the pier is an extension of the land and beyond the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, citing in support thereof Cleveland Terminal & V. R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208 U.S. 316, 28 S.Ct. 414, 52 L.Ed. 508, and State Industrial Commission of State of New York v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U.S. 263, 42 S.Ct. 473, 66 L.Ed. 933, as well as various text books. However, it is our opinion that whether or not this plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the doctrine depends not on the locality of the accident but on what he was doing at the time of the alleged injuries and the character of the work in which he was engaged. In other words, was he in the ship's service? It is stated in 3 L.Ed.2d, in the annotation following Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 1959, 358 U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 445, 3 L.Ed.2d 413:

"It is firmly established that, in determining whether one other than a seaman is entitled to benefits of the doctrine of seaworthiness, a single factor is of controlling importance, and this factor is the character of the work done by the person in question. If it is work which is in the `ship's service' * * * then the seaworthiness doctrine is applicable * * * and it has also been held that, assuming that the `ship's service' test is met by the work done by the injured person, it is immaterial to the applicability of the seaworthiness doctrine that the injury was sustained, not aboard this ship but on shore." 3 L.Ed.2d at p. 1767.

Having the above theory in mind, the Court submitted to the jury this special interrogatory:

"1. Was the plaintiff performing a service of the ship in connection with the discharge of cargo from the S. S. City of London at the time he suffered his injury?"

We have carefully examined the testimony and our charge explaining that interrogatory and find, first, that there was ample evidence to support a finding that plaintiff Hagans was performing a part of the ship's service and, second, that the jury was adequately instructed on what constituted "ship's service."

From the brief statement of the facts above, it seems apparent to us that the unloading from the hold to the sling to the winch to the flat truck and thence to the locating point within the pier, although one hundred feet from the door of the pier, was one continuous operation and was a part of those duties customarily performed by the ship's crew. Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 1959, 358 U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 445, 3 L. Ed.2d 413. Furthermore, admittedly, Hagans was one of a group of twenty-two men, part of which worked in the hold, part on the deck and part within the pier, but all employed by the same stevedoring company to accomplish the same final result.

Since we have thus concluded, it is not necessary to pass on the question of whether or not the issue here involved comes within the provisions of the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, Section 740 of Title 46 of the United States Code Annotated, as urged by the plaintiff.

Defendant next argues that the liability here resulted not from the stowage of the cargo but the condition of the cargo after it was discharged. But counsel for defendant admits, as stated in his brief at p. 13, "that if cargo is stowed aboard ship in an improper manner, that can render the ship itself unseaworthy and liable to a longshoreman injured aboard by reason of the unseaworthy condition of the ship created by the improper stowage." The facts in this case made it abundantly clear that the bags of sand stowed in the hold of the vessel were broken and leaking; that they were in that condition when they were placed aboard the sling; that sand continued to seep from the sling as it was hoisted from the hold and across the deck of the vessel; and that the seepage continued over the apron of the pier to the place where Hagans was working and at the point where he was injured there was a sprinkling of sand on the floor. There was also ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that the injury which he suffered was caused when he slipped on that sand. We cannot give any effect to defendant's argument that this event happened as a result of the condition of the cargo after it had been discharged. The sand being on the pier had a direct causal relation to the improper stowage. In other words, due to improper stowage the ship was unseaworthy and due to the unseaworthiness, Hagans was injured and that created liability which cannot be avoided.

Defendant next argues that all that it is required to do is furnish a reasonably safe place for plaintiff to work. As we have previously stated, Hagans was, as found by the jury, in the ship's service, the place where he was working was unsafe because of a condition caused by the ship itself, and, therefore, the ship is as liable as though Hagans had slipped on the deck itself. Furthermore, there was convincing evidence in this case that the manner of discharging the cargo was improper. That in itself could create and did create an unsafe place to work. Beard v....