Red River Line v. Cheatham

• Decision Date: 02 January 1894
• Docket Number: 162.
• Citation: Red River Line v. Cheatham, 60 F. 517 (5th Cir. 1894)
• Parties: RED RIVER LINE v. CHEATHAM.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

60 F. 517

RED RIVER LINE v. CHEATHAM.

No. 162.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 2, 1894

Suit was brought in the court below by libel in personam against the Red River Line, a corporation created under the laws of Louisiana, owner of the steamboat Valley Queen, in the Mississippi and Red river trade, and against George W. Rea master of the Valley Queen, for damages accruing to the minor children of James Brooks through the drowning of the said Brooks at a landing on Red river on the up trip of the Valley Queen, May 16, 1892. The gist of the libel in relation to the death of Brooks is found in the third and fourth articles thereof, as follows: 'Third. That, said steamboat having some freight on board to deliver at said East Point, said Rea, master, directed a landing to be made there, but failed and neglected to have said steamboat moored or fastened to the wharf or bank by lines, chains, or other fastenings, and attempted to hold said vessel to the bank by her wheel,--the engine being kept going,--which libelant alleges to have been gross carelessness and negligence on the part of said master particularly in view of the fact that Red river was at that point swollen with floods, and that the current of the river was then and there unusually rapid. Nevertheless, by directions of said master, the stage plank was lowered to the bank, and the deck hands, including James Brooks, were ordered to take the freight for East Point off said steamer to a warehouse at said East Point on or near the bank of said river, which the deck hands, including said James Brooks did. That as the last deck hand left the stage plank, to carry to shore some of the said goods, the said master, not giving sufficient time for the deck hands to put the freight on shore, and return to the boat, tapped the bell, and ordered the boat backed out, and cried out, 'Come aboard,' 'Come aboard.' That thereupon the dock hands, including said Brooks, ran to the stage plank, which had then, in consequence of the motion of said steamboat, fallen into the river at the shore end. That some of the hands managed to scramble on board. While they were going on board, said master ordered the men on deck to throw the fall off the capstan, to lower the stage. That one deck hand caught at the stage, but missed his hold, and was swept away and drowned. That the said James Brooks climbed up on the stage, the boat meanwhile still backing out. That in consequence of the grossly careless action and orders of said master, while said Brooks was climbing to the stage, it turned up on edge, and fell into the water, clear of said boat, falling on said Brooks. That the said Brooks swam down, and caught the wheel of the boat. That thereupon men on shore and men on the boat, who were witnesses, immediately cried out to stop the wheel; that the man had caught it. That these cries were in the hearing of, and were heard by, said master, Rea, who nevertheless willfully and cruelly refused to have said wheel stopped, or to take any action to rescue said Brooks, who was then and there thrown by the revolution of said wheel violently into the rapidly flowing and swollen river, and then and there drowned. Fourth. That the said James Brooks came to his death because of the gross negligence and willful carelessness of the said master, in not fastening said steamer to the wharf or bank in making said landing; in not giving the deck hands sufficient time to take off the freight, and get back on board; in attempting to hold said steamer to the bank by the revolution of her wheel; in the orders which he gave to the men on deck with regard to the stage plank, in consequence of which said stage plank turned on edge, and fell into the river; and in not stopping the wheel when he was informed that said Brooks was clinging to it, and not making any effort to rescue said Brooks from the imminent peril in which he was placed by the gross and willful negligence and carelessness of said Rea as aforesaid.' To these articles of the libel the respondents answered as follows: 'That the third article of said libel is true in part, and in part untrue, and its allegations are denied, except as herein admitted. The truth is that the said steamboat, as is usual and customary, did make a landing at East Point, on Red river, on its up trip, and did not fasten the boat to the bank; its stem being pointed up the river, and it being held in position with its nose to the bank, and as has been done from time immemorial, and well known to all seafaring and river men, as well as laborers. That it is true a few barrels of freight were ordered taken off said steamboat to land at said point, and said work was duly and properly performed by a number of said laborers on board, including the said James Brooks, and that ample and sufficient time was given and granted for the purpose of returning on board the boat, but that the libelant neglected and refused to return to said boat in due time. That the various orders given to him in the premises to return to said boat were disobeyed by him, and that everything requisite and proper was done to have said Brooks return to said boat, without avail; he persisting in having his way in regard to what he should do, regardless of the orders given him. Fourth. To the fourth article of said libel, respondents answer and say that the same is untrue, and the allegations are specially denied, and the truth is that the respondents and the master and officers of said steamboat did everything in their power to have said James Brooks return to said steamboat, and that there was no fault and no negligence on their part, in any manner, in any of the premises. That no damage whatsoever was sustained by said James Brooks, nor by any one dependent upon him, for which respondents are liable; and respondents specially deny any liability to any one claiming to represent them, as being responsible in the premises. And respondents aver that if said Brooks was injured in the premises by any cause, save his own recklessness and neglect, it was by the neglect of a fellow servant or fellow servants, the risk of which he assumed.'

On the hearing the court below dismissed the libel as to George W Rea, master, but found the boat in fault, and condemned her owner, the Red River Line, to pay to the libelant the sum of $2,500,...