Moore v. American Scantic Line, 290.
| Decision Date | 22 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 290.,290. |
| Citation | 121 F.2d 767 |
| Parties | MOORE v. AMERICAN SCANTIC LINE, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, of New York City (John M. Aherne, and John L. Quinlan, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Hunt, Hill & Betts, of New York City (Geo. Whitefield Betts, Jr., Frank J. Zito, and Helen F. Tuohy, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff, in July 1936, purchased a round-trip ticket from New York to Helsinfors and sailed with his wife on the defendant's S.S. "Minnequa." During the eastbound voyage he was painfully injured while skipping rope with others on what was called the bridgedeck when his right foot struck an uneven spot on the deck where three plates overlapped and his Achilles tendon was broken. Trial by jury in the District Court for the Southern District of New York resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed.
The "Minnequa" was a freighter built at Hog Island which had been re-conditioned to carry not more than sixteen passengers and had been so certified with the highest classification by the American Bureau of Shipping. There was reserved for the use of passengers to exercise a space on the deck amidships near the No. 3 hatch. This deck was made of overlapping steel plates five feet wide by fourteen feet long which were three-eighths of an inch thick. Having been in use for about twenty years, the overlapping edges were in places a little worn down but where, as at some points, the corners of three of the plates overlapped the rise above the surface of the lower plate was practically the combined original thickness of the other two.
Passengers, including the appellee, had been, with the knowledge and approval of the defendant, amusing themselves daily by skipping rope and indulging in other sports on this deck during the ten days of the voyage before plaintiff was hurt. He had made a previous trip on the same ship and had had ample opportunity to observe the condition of the deck. When the appellee was injured he was jumping in a contest to determine which of several participants could continue the longest without missing. The rope, supplied by the ship, was held at one end by the chief engineer and at the other by a passenger who were turning it faster and faster in an effort to make the appellee miss a skip. While this was being done the appellee's position on the deck when he began to jump became changed until his right foot finally came down after a jump on a spot where three plates overlapped and he was injured as stated.
The complaint alleged that the defendant provided for its passengers a deck space for sports and entertainment which it invited the plaintiff to, and he did, use for that purpose but which was, due to its negligence, defective and dangerous for such use in that its surface was uneven and that appellee's injuries were caused by such negligence. The answer put these allegations in issue and contained special defenses of contributory negligence; a passage contract limiting liability and requiring notice of claim which was alleged not to have been complied with; and assumption of risk.
The basis of defendant's liability in such an action as this is negligence. It is not an insurer but does owe the duty to exercise a very high degree of care for the safety of its passengers. Maibrunn v. Hamburg-American S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 77 F. 2d 304; Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181, 191, 10 L.Ed. 115. A passenger is entitled to have a carrier exercise for his safety as much skill, care, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc.
...condition caused by smashed grape on floor; carrier liable and owes highest degree of care to passenger); Moore v. American Scantic Line, Inc., 121 F.2d 767 (2d Cir.1941) (plaintiff injured while skipping rope on bridgedeck when foot struck uneven spot on deck; defendant liable because owes......
-
Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
...disclaimer of liability in the pass, which was not shown to the plaintiff in any event. I find it has no legal effect. Moore v. American Scantic Line, 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 767. Apart from its effect on the present litigants, I find our present decision most unfortunate, because it seems another......
-
Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
...we need not consider what effect the attempted disclaimer would have had if Kermarec had been aware of it. See Moore v. American Scantic Line, Inc., 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 767. Compare 46 U.S.C. § 183c, 46 U.S.C.A. § 2 'With respect to the first issue of fact, namely, the alleged negligence of th......
-
In re Treanor
...of its passengers' safety.” Monteleone v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 838 F.2d 63, 65 (2d Cir.1988) (citing Moore v. American Scantic Line, Inc., 121 F.2d 767, 768 (2d Cir.1941) ; Demgard v. United States, 94 F.Supp. 309, 310 (S.D.N.Y.1950) ). An owner breaches his or her duty of reasonable c......
-
Chapter § 3.02 CRUISE SHIPS
...shall be null and void and of no effect." [448] Second Circuit: Moore v. American Scantic Lines, 30 F. Supp. 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1939), aff'd 121 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1941). Third Circuit: Oran v. Fair Wind Sailing, Inc., 2009 WL 4349321 (D.V.I. 2009). Ninth Circuit: Matter of Pacific Adventures, In......
-
Section 11.30 Passengers
...vessel). Consistent with these principles, a common carrier is not an insurer of its passengers’ safety. See Moore v. Am. Scantic Line, 121 F.2d 767 (2nd Cir. 1941). The passenger is required to exercise reasonable care for the passenger’s own safety. The Great N., 251 F. 826 (9th Cir. 1918......