Palmer v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 34383
| Citation | 328 P.2d 169,52 Wn.2d 604 |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 34383,34383 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | John C. PALMER by Jean M. Palmer, his Guardian ad litem, Appellant, v. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, a corporation, Respondent, and Stanley Steamship Corporation, a corporation, Defendant. |
Levinson & Friedman, Seattle, for appellant.
Riddell, Riddell & Williams, Seattle, Graham, James & Rolph, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
The plaintiff was a seaman on defendant's ship. He was observed on the deck of the vessel in an intoxicated condition about three o'clock a. m., on August 22, 1955, by two crew members. They proceeded to help him toward his quarters by each taking an arm and walking him along the deck. When they reached the after deckhouse, one man preceded and one man followed plaintiff along a passageway to the top of the ladder leading down to the crew's quarters. One man left, him, at this point, and the other left after plaintiff had taken a couple of steps down the ladder. A few seconds later, the plaintiff fell down the ladder and was severely injured.
The plaintiff sued by his guardian adlitem for the injuries received. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
The appellant assigns error (1) to the court's refusal to give two requested instructions, which would have imposed a duty, as a matter of law, on the shipowner to care for a seaman in a helpless condition by reason of intoxication, and (2) in submitting to the jury the issue as to whether there was, in fact, such a duty on the part of the shipowner.
Appellant contends, in support of this assignment, that a shipowner has the duty to provide maintenance and cure for a sick or injured seaman; that intoxication constitutes a sickness which invokes that duty; and that this duty includes adequate measures to prevent him from being injured as a result of his intoxication.
We do not agree that the duty of maintenance and cure of sick and injured seamen includes the duty to prevent injury by reason of intoxication.
In the instant case, the appellant has received the maintenance and cure which a seaman is entitled to receive because of his injury. He needed no maintenance and cure for his intoxication prior to the injury. If there was any duty of care on the part of the shipowner prior to the injury, it must be based, therefore, not on the subsequent sickness or injury, but on the seaman's intoxication prior thereto. The question is as to the duty, if any, that a shipowner owes to an intoxicated seaman, not what is the nature of the duty of maintenance and cure that is owed to an injured seaman. The assignments are not well taken.
Appellant assigns as error the submission to the jury of the issue of whether or not there was an 'invariable' custom under which the shipowner owed a duty of care to an intoxicated seaman. The testimony on this point was conflicting, and appellant now objects to the word 'invariable' in the instruction. No such objection was made at the time the instruction was submitted to the jury. It cannot be raised later for the first time.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony of two witnesses as to his prior intoxication. This evidence was admitted for the purpose of affecting appellant's ability to earn money by holding a steady job. The evidence was properly admitted for that purpose, as it affected the amount of damages suffered from loss of wages.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness as to the ability of intoxicated seaman generally to descend ladders on a ship. The trial court properly admitted this evidence for the limited purpose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Babcock v. State
...from assuming the function of a jury by weighing the facts as presented in documents prior to trial. See Palmer v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 52 Wash.2d 604, 608-09, 328 P.2d 169 (upholding denial of summary judgment when facts were at issue), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 985, 79 S.Ct. 940, 3 L.Ed.2d I......
-
Kramer v. J.I. Case Mfg. Co.
...affected by substance abuse. Admissibility of a personal injury plaintiff's drinking habits was addressed in Palmer v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 52 Wash.2d 604, 328 P.2d 169 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 985, 79 S.Ct. 940, 3 L.Ed.2d 933 (1959). Without considering the issue of prejudice, t......
-
State v. Walker
...raised on appeal when the basis for such objections was not brought to the attention of the trial court. Palmer v. Waterman S.S. Corp.,52 Wash.2d 604, 328 P.2d 169 (1958); Bombardi v. Pochel's Appliance Further, the instruction objected to is not set out in the appellant's brief. CAROA 42(g......
-
Stuart v. Consolidated Foods Corp.
...428 S.W.2d 581 (Mo.1968); Robertson v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 403 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.Civ.App.1966); Palmer v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 52 Wash.2d 604, 328 P.2d 169, cert. denied, 359 U.S. 985, 79 S.Ct. 940, 3 L.Ed.2d 933 (1958). Where error is committed but the result could not have......