Olson v. Oregon Coal & Navigation Co.
| Decision Date | 03 August 1899 |
| Docket Number | 11,432. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | OLSON v. OREGON COAL & NAVIGATION CO. |
Geo. W Towle, Jr., for respondent.
This is a suit in admiralty to recover $15,000 damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the libelant on board the steamer Empire. The libel alleges, in substance that on the 22d of February, 1897, the defendant was the owner of and engaged in operating the steamer Empire, and the libelant was employed thereon in the capacity of ship carpenter; that on the date named the said steamer, with the libelant on board, left the harbor of San Francisco, bound on a voyage to Coos Bay, in the state of Oregon; that she had no cargo on board, and was light, and 'by reason thereof liable to sudden, unusual, and violent motions when in waters agitated by the wind'; that on the day named there was a heavy sea on the bar at the entrance of San Francisco Harbor; that, although there were hatch covers on board the steamer, the defendant negligently and carelessly operated her on that day with the after-hatch uncovered, 'and thereby made the deck of the said steamer Empire unsafe and dangerous; and while the libelant on said day was performing his duty upon the said steamer, as such ship carpenter, and in the performance of his duties as such carpenter was going from the after part of the said vessel to the forward part, he, without any fault on his part, was thrown from his feet by a roll of the said steamer Empire and, by reason of the after-hatch of the said steamer being uncovered, he was thrown down the after-hatch of the said steamer, * * * and thereby suffered a compound comminuted fracture of the right thigh,' and by reason thereof was compelled to go to the United States Marine Hospital at San Francisco, where he has been since confined, 'and has suffered great physical pain and mental anguish by reason of the premises aforesaid, and for like reason has become permanently and totally disabled; * * * all to the libelant's damage in the sum of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars.' It is not alleged in the libel that defendant or its servants refused or neglected to properly treat or care for libelant after the injury received by him. To this libel certain exceptions have been filed, which make it necessary to consider whether the facts alleged are such as to render the defendant liable in this action.
1. The defendant is a corporation, and therefore can only act through its agents or servants, so that the negligence with which it is charged must necessarily have been the personal negligence of some one employed by it; and for the purpose of passing upon the exceptions it will be assumed that this person was the master, to whom the navigation of the ship had been intrusted for the voyage mentioned in the libel. It is distinctly alleged that the steamer was provided with necessary hatch covers, and the act of negligence charged is that upon the occasion referred to in the libel the steamer was carelessly operated with the after-hatch uncovered. The question, then, is whether the defendant, as owner, is liable for this act of negligence upon the part of the master of the steamer. It will be readily conceded that no cause of action is stated against the defendant unless the libel shows upon its face that the defendant failed to perform some positive duty which it owed to the libelant as its employe. The duties which the owner of a ship owes to the seamen employed in its service are to see that the ship is seaworthy, properly manned, and equipped with all necessary appliances for the seamen's safety, and for the use of the ship; to provide them with sufficient food, and with medical attendance and care in case of sickness (Gabrielson v. Waydell, 135 N.Y. 1, 31 N.E. 969); to use due care in the selection of the master and other officers of the ship (Brown v. The D.S Cage, 1 Woods, 401, Fed. Cas. No. 2,002; Hill v Murray, 6 Ben. 141, Fed. Cas. No. 6,495); and he may also, under the general principles which govern the relation of the master and servant, owe certain special duties to minors and seamen known to be inexperienced. Is there anything in the libel which can be construed as a charge that the defendant failed in the performance of any one of these duties? I think not. The negligence complained of, namely, leaving uncovered the hatchway into which the libelant fell, was that of the master, or other officer whose duty it was to see that it was properly closed with the cover provided for that purpose by the defendant. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. Oregon Coal & Navigation Co.
...The questions presented by this appeal is as to the sufficiency of the libel, the exceptions to which were sustained by the court below. 96 F. 109. The suit was for damages for sustained by the libelant in a fall through an open hatchway in the deck of the steamer Empire, on which he was em......
-
Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. of New Jersey
... ... perils of navigation or from the negligence of fellow ... servants.' ... In the ... In Olson v. Oregon Coal & Navigation Co. (D.C.) 96 ... F. 109, it was held that: ... ...
-
Sievers v. Eyre
... ... was discharging an ordinary duty of a seaman in the ... navigation or management of the yacht, and is, in my opinion, ... to be regarded ... negligence the owner is not liable. Olsen v. Oregon, ... etc., Co. (D.C.) 96 F. 109; Hughes on Adm. Sec. 101, and ... cases ... ...