Hanson v. Luckenbach SS Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 375.,375. |
| Citation | 65 F.2d 457 |
| Parties | HANSON v. LUCKENBACH S. S. CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City (Vernon S. Jones and Walter X. Connor, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Bartholomew B. Coyne, of New York City (Alfred J. Bedard, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
Hanson was a seaman on board one of the defendant's ships which was in the port of Philadelphia, lying beside a wharf. A lifeboat had been taken off a deck load of lumber stowed on the after deck, and the chain which had made it fast fell over the side in a bight, held at either end. The lumber rose nine feet above the deck, and the space between its side and the gunwale was not more than a foot; at least so the plaintiff said, and the jury to which the case was tried might so have found. The bight, hanging over the ship's side between it and the wharf, was about one hundred and twenty pounds in weight, and the boatswain wished it stowed on deck. He ordered the plaintiff to go down from the deck load into the narrow space and overhaul the chain, laying it alongside of him as it came aboard. The plaintiff obeyed and got the chain partly over the rail, when for some reason which he was unable to explain it slipped from his hand and again went overboard, catching his thumb in its passage and causing the injury for which he sued. The judge left it to the jury to say whether the defendant had furnished him with a safe place to work, and, if not, whether this was the cause of his injury. The jury found a verdict of $1,600, and the defendant appealed.
The action is brought under the Jones Act (section 33 46 USCA § 688), which gives the plaintiff all the rights of railway employees. Among these is a reasonably safe place in which to work. Zinnel v. U. S. S. B. E. F. Corp., 10 F.(2d) 47 (C. C. A. 2); The Valdarno, 11 F.(2d) 35 (C. C. A. 5); Howarth v. U. S. S. B. E. F. Corp., 24 F.(2d) 374 (C. C. A. 2). It appears to us that a jury might find it unsafe for a man to try to pull up so heavy a chain in such cramped quarters. The deck load rose behind him higher than his head; he was obliged to stoop or crouch in order to get proper resistance to the weight he was to overcome. Had he stood upright, it might have pulled him overboard; at least a jury might think so. But a space of only one foot, or even two, is too narrow, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Permanente S. S. Corp.
...failure to provide a seaman with a safe place to work can be present in many forms. 2 Norris, The Law of Seamen, § 688; Hanson v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 65 F.2d 457; Persson v. James Griffiths & Sons, Inc., 85 Cal.App.2d 672, 673, 194 P.2d 86. It certainly includes the subjecting of a......
-
Saleh v. US, 92 Civ. 3646 (CHT).
...of the task at hand. Diebold v. Moore McCormack Bulk Transport Lines, Inc., 805 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1986); Hanson v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 65 F.2d 457 (2d Cir.1933). The standard of safety and reasonable fitness is necessarily flexible and must depend on the particular facts of the case. In ......
-
Esta v. Persohn
...that to carry out the orders given him by the master of the vessed will almost certaintly be extremely dangerous. In Hanson v. Luckenback S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 65 F.2d 457, 458, the Court said: 'Being a seaman, it is well settled that plaintiff did not assume any risks involved in obeying In H......
-
Kangadis v. United States
...157 F.2d 817; Roberts v. United Fisheries Vessels Co., supra; Reskin v. Minnesota-Atlantic Transit Co., supra; Hanson v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 1933, 65 F.2d 457. Kangadis testified that he had had no previous trouble with his right hand. After treatment at the Okinawa hospital, in N......