Murphy v. Hutzel
| Decision Date | 27 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 1.,1. |
| Citation | 27 F. Supp. 473 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. HUTZEL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
H. M. Long, of Philadelphia, for libelant.
Rawle & Henderson, of Philadelphia, for respondent.
A ruling in this case has awaited the transcription of the notes of testimony and the receipt of Briefs.
There is a widely prevalent notion that by presence as a guest in any vehicle, the guest becomes so far identified with the host as to be deemed to have waived any charge of negligence against the latter. The fact of such relation as guest and host is present in this case. The thought expressed is sentimental rather than legal. It is evident that the libellant entertained and was influenced by it because the injuries complained of were sustained August 18th, 1935. No libel was filed until January 6th, 1938, and no suggestion of a demand for damages made until shortly before the libel was filed. Indeed there is room for the inference that had not the libellant, after the occurrence on which his claim is based, felt the need of financial aid, and had the respondent responded more fully than he did to libellant's appeal for a loan, the libel would not have been filed. This reluctance of the libellant to press a legal claim may be viewed as creditable to him or it may be viewed in discredit of his claim. The fact remains that the claim made is a stale one and the law discourages stale claims.
We are inquiring into an event almost four years after its occurrence, and such a lapse of time almost always presents difficulties. The main facts, however, are not in controversy. Indeed the only facts in dispute are the extent of the damages suffered by the libellant and whether the respondent had knowledge of the leakage of gasoline when he started his motor.
The respondent was the owner of a gasoline launch, which he used as a pleasure boat for the entertainment of himself and his friends. A number, including the libellant and his wife, had been invited by the wife of the respondent to a crabbing party. The water in which the crabbing was done was shallow. The tide was on the ebb. The launch was steered so far out of the channel that she grounded in the shoal water at the side of the channel. There was nothing unusual or perilous in this as the bottom was soft. The only inconvenience was that the occupants of the launch would be compelled to await the turn of the tide before she was again afloat. This meant nothing as the crabbing was done from a small boat which the launch had brought with her. The sides of the channel were a little sloping. This gave the launch a list. The party accepted the situation and amused themselves swimming and crabbing while waiting for the turn of the tide. An anchor had been thrown out from the launch. When the time came to make the return trip home and the launch was again afloat, the libellant who had put on a bathing suit and had left the launch, was asked to trip the anchor. He returned to the launch for this purpose. The respondent was navigating the launch. While the libellant was in the act of taking in the anchor the respondent turned the switch which operated the motor. In the instant there was a flash and what the libellant calls an explosion and the respondent a fire, occurred. All the occupants of the boat were then in real peril because of the rapid spread of the fire. Fortunately they were all accustomed to being about boats and the water and they scrambled out of the boat into the shoal water, thus avoiding the fire danger. The libellant was at the time at what may be called the origin of the fire. According to his version he was hurled by the force of what he describes as an explosion, out of the boat. Whether what happened may be called an explosion or simply a fire, he was severely burned about the chest and legs. The respondent, after his wife and two children who were of the party were conducted to safety, endeavored to check the progress of the flames. In this he was unsuccessful and the launch was completely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. LeCompte, 85-C-0016
...and Armour there was no evidence that those claiming the warranty were actually working on board the boats. Compare Murphy v. Hutzel, 27 F.Supp. 473 (E.D.Penn.1939) where a guest was hurt while acting as a member of the crew on a junketing boat. "The relation of the owner of a boat and thos......
-
Linehan v. United States Lines, Inc., Civ. A. No. 74-118
...Capt. Linehan had provisioned the Boat. DX-11 at 8. 38 See, Merrill Trust Co. v. Bradford, 507 F.2d 467 (1st Cir. 1974); Murphy v. Hutzel, 27 F.Supp. 473 (E.D.Pa.1939); Kanischer v. Irwin Operating Co., 215 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1954). But see, In re Read's Petition, 224 F.Supp. 241 39 See gen......
-
Gele v. Chevron Oil Co.
...host and guests were common adventurers, much as if two or more together hire a boat. They are both hosts and guests." Murphy v. Hutzel, E.D.Pa., 1939, 27 F.Supp. 473, 475. 19 In fact, Herr testified that all members of the party were to participate in the operation of the TIKI Stewart Wils......
-
In re Read's Petition
...of a vessel. There being no commercial relationship here, Claimant was a guest or co-adventurer. Petitioners rely upon Murphy v. Hutzel (E.D.Pa.1939) 27 F.Supp. 473, in which the respondent was the owner of a gasoline launch which he used as a pleasure boat for the entertainment of himself ......