Jeffries v. De Hart
| Decision Date | 01 June 1900 |
| Docket Number | 6. |
| Citation | 102 F. 765 |
| Parties | JEFFRIES et al. v. DE HART. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
J Warren Coulston and John G. Johnson, for appellants.
J Parker Kirlin, for appellee.
Before ACHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and Bradford, District Judge.
This was a suit in admiralty, in which a libel in personam was filed against M. J. De Hart, owner of the steamship Henrietta H., by the widow and children of Thomas Jeffries, to recover damages for his death, which resulted from an accident that occurred on that vessel while he was at work as a stevedore. The fact that the accident happened on board a ship is however, of no significance. The same principles apply as would have been applicable if it had happened upon the land and recovery had been sought in a common-law action. The necessary condition of the defendant's liability is that he owed to Jeffries a duty of care, in violation whereof he negligently committed or omitted some act, and thereby proximately caused the fatal catastrophe. Bragdon v Perkins-Campbell Co., 30 C.C.A. 568, 87 F. 109. Jeffries was not employed by De Hart nor by any one representing him but by the G. P. Cronise Company, the master stevedores, who were loading the ship under an agreement in writing which contained this provision: ' It may be assumed that this provision imposed upon the owner of the ship the duty to exercise reasonable care to assure the safety of any appliances which in pursuance thereof he might actually specify or point out for use in doing the work; but the evidence has convinced us, as it did the court below, that the gear which broke and permitted the chute to fall upon or against Jeffries was not selected by De Hart, or by any person acting on his behalf, but by the stevedores themselves, who in choosing this particular tackle relied upon their own judgment as to its fitness, and who, in using it as they did, were not pursuing the contract with the owner, but were acting independently of it, and therefore upon their own responsibility. All that the mate of the vessel, or any other agent of De Hart, really did, was to passively permit the workmen of the Cronise Company to employ such part of the vessel's tackle as they saw proper, instead of furnishing the gear which, under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seas Shipping Co v. Sieracki
...on another ground, 277 U.S. 226, 48 S.Ct. 440, 72 L.Ed. 860; The Howell, 2 Cir., 273 F. 513; The Student, 4 Cir., 243 F. 807; Jeffries v. DeHart, 3 Cir., 102 F. 765; The Mercier, D.C., 5 F.Supp. 511, affirmed 72 F.2d 1008 (C.C.A.9). 4 See in addition to the authorities cited by the Circuit ......
-
THE RICHELIEU
...Co. v. State of Maryland (C. C. A.) 259 F. 23; The Satilla (C. C. A.) 235 F. 58; The Persian Monarch (C. C. A.) 55 F. 333; Jeffries v. De Hart (C. C. A.) 102 F. 765. That is to say, the latter had the right to assume, not only that the trimmers were in proper condition and properly operated......
-
Cornec v. Baltimore & OR Co.
...methods used. Atlantic Transport Co. v. State of Maryland (C. C. A. 4th) 259 F. 23; The Satilla (C. C. A. 2d) 235 F. 58; Jeffries v. De Hart (C. C. A. 3d) 102 F. 765; Grayson v. Ellerman Lines (1920) A. C. The duty rests upon the master, of course, to see that cargo is properly stowed so th......
-
Sieracki v. Seas Shipping Co.
...273 F. 513; The Student, 4 Cir., 1917, 243 F. 807, certiorari denied, 1917, 245 U.S. 658, 38 S.Ct. 14, 62 L.Ed. 534; Jeffries et al. v. DeHart, 3 Cir., 1900, 102 F. 765; The Mercier, D.C.Or. 1933, 5 F.Supp. 511, affirmed, 9 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d It will be observed that the numerical weight o......