Sibley v. Barber Steamship Lines

• Decision Date: 18 January 1932
• Citation: 57 F.2d 318
• Parties: SIBLEY v. BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

57 F.2d 318 (1932)

SIBLEY v. BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

January 18, 1932.

Lucien V. Axtell, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Hunt, Hill & Betts, of New York City (H. Victor Crawford, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

COLEMAN, District Judge.

Since the minutes of the trial have not been furnished to me and the briefs of counsel do not contain a statement of that evidence, I cannot be specific in the citation of the testimony. It is appropriate, however, at this time to express the court's appreciation of the fairness and co-operation of counsel for both sides in the disposition of the case.

The plaintiff had been employed as an oiler on the steamship West Chetac, and when she arrived in New York he signed off with the purpose of taking an examination and returning to her service in perhaps a higher capacity. He was given permission by her officers to leave his clothes on board and to sleep there while she remained at her pier in the hope that he would be one of the officers or of the crew when she left on her next voyage.

Under this arrangement he returned to her on the night in question in company with the first mate, but was stopped at her gangplank by the first assistant engineer, who ordered the plaintiff to keep off the boat. The first mate, however, continued the permission theretofore given, and the plaintiff went on board over the objection of the first assistant engineer. While proceeding to the stateroom where he had been given permission to sleep he fell into one of the open hatches and sustained a broken arm for which he seeks to recover.

The only item of negligence sustained by the proof is that while he was proceeding to the stateroom the lights were put out. It was not negligence to have the hatch open, and I believe the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the hatch was duly protected with stanchions and wire cable. On the other hand, I believe that a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the lights were put out while he was proceeding to the stateroom under such circumstances that it would be improper to infer contributory negligence in his fall through the hatch.

The cause of the extinguishment of the lights was the deliberate and wanton act of the first assistant engineer who went to the engine room and pulled out all the light fuses soon after the plaintiff, in defiance of his order, boarded the ship. The first assistant engineer was intoxicated...