Rogers v. United States Lines, 10993.
| Citation | 205 F.2d 57 |
| Decision Date | 24 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 10993.,10993. |
| Parties | ROGERS v. UNITED STATES LINES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
William M. Alper, Philadelphia, Pa. (Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Robert Cox, Philadelphia, Pa. (T. E. Byrne, Jr., Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
In this diversity action for personal injuries plaintiff appeals from the judgment against him and from the denial of his motions for a new trial.
On January 10, 1949, at a dock in Philadelphia, the S. S. Pioneer Tide was being unloaded of its cargo of ore. By 7:00 P. M. the only ore remaining was that in the wings of the hold. Special tub gangs of Lavino Company, the stevedoring contractor, were removing this. In that operation the forward gang, of which plaintiff was a member, was using one of the ship's booms, the stevedore's land fall, the two ship's winches, a ship's runner on one of the winches and the land fall runner furnished by Lavino on the other one. The ore was shoveled into the tubs which were then hoisted up and off the ship into railroad cars on the dock. At about 9:30 P. M. one of the tubs unexpectedly swung across the hold and struck appellant. It seems now accepted by everyone concerned that the accident was caused by the land fall runner, operated at the time by a Lavino employee, rewinding on the winch drum which forced the tub to move as it did.
Appellant's objection to the trial court's charge and his sole reason for seeking to reverse the judgment below is based upon his contention that the land fall runner was short and therefore defective. He claims that although the runner "* * * was originally provided by the stevedoring contractor, it was adopted by the vessel and incorporated with the ship's loading equipment and thus became an appurtenance of the vessel, with regard to which the ship had a continuing and nondelegable responsibilty for its seaworthiness."
Admittedly then, the alleged unseaworthy condition was not created by the ship. The runner was owned, produced and fastened to the winch by Lavino, which was in charge of and performing the unloading operation. And there is no indication that the ship sanctioned its use or even knew of its existence. The statement that the vessel adopted the runner as an appurtenance is simply not justified by the record. In accordance with the well accepted practice the discharge of the cargo had been turned over to Lavino Company, an experienced master stevedore concern. The latter had taken the assignment and proceeded to carry it out. In the course of so doing and for its purposes it hooked up one of its own wires and thereafter used it in connection with the other rigging. While there is strong evidence of Lavino's negligence through its employees, particularly the winch operator, the resolution of that question is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solet v. M/V CAPT. HV DUFRENE, Civ. A. No. 67-1713.
...U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 455, 3 L.Ed. 2d 413; Rogers v. United States Lines, 1954, 347 U.S. 984, 74 S.Ct. 849, 98 L.Ed. 1120, reversing 3 Cir. 1953, 205 F.2d 57; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099. It exists even as to equipment that was not furnished by......
-
Victory Carriers, Inc v. Law 8212 54 18 8212 19, 1971
...798 (1954), aff'g 205 F.2d 478 (CA9 1953), and Rogers v. United States Lines, 347 U.S. 984, 74 S.Ct. 849, 98 L.Ed. 1120 (1954), rev'g 205 F.2d 57 (CA3 1954), the Court decided without opinion that an unseaworthiness recovery would be possible to a longshoreman injured by equipment brought a......
-
Reynolds v. Royal Mail Lines
...per curiam, 1954, 347 U.S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.Ed. 798; Grille v. United States, 2 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 919, 922; Rogers v. U. S. Lines, 3 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 57, reversed 1954, 347 U.S. 984, 74 S.Ct. 849, 98 S.Ct. 1120; and regardless of whether or not the defect was known, or in the ......
-
Huff v. Matson Navigation Company
...furnished by the stevedore.3 In Rogers v. United States Lines, 347 U.S. 984, 74 S.Ct. 849, 98 L.Ed. 1120, summarily reversing (3 Cir.) 205 F.2d 57, a longshoreman in the employment of a stevedoring contractor was engaged with the other members of a gang in unloading a cargo of ore at a dock......