Smith v. Texas Company, 37

Decision Date02 February 1955
Docket NumberNo. 37,Docket 23112.,37
PartiesAlto B. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The TEXAS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

William A. Blank, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff-appellee.

Tompkins, Boal & Tompkins, New York City (Arthur M. Boal, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and HARLAN, Circuit Judges.

MEDINA, Circuit Judge.

This wholly unnecessary appeal is due to the circumstance that the trial judge followed the all-too-prevalent practice of giving instructions consisting of an aggregate of legal platitudes, which most of the jurors had probably heard repeated on numerous other occasions, without any delineation whatever of the factual issues in the case.

Plaintiff was an ordinary seaman aboard the Alabama, an oil tanker owned by defendant; and he was injured at Port Texaco, Texas, on December 4, 1950 when his leg was caught in a chock, through which an 8-inch hawser was being handled during the operation of casting off the eye of the hawser from a barge alongside. The accident happened at 6 a. m., while it was still dark, although the witnesses seem to have been able to observe what they were about and there is little dispute as to the basic facts.

The barge had been brought by tug to the port side of the Alabama about amidships, where she was moored by three lines, one astern, one from the starboard side of the barge to the port side of the Alabama, and one from bow to bow. When the loading of the oil was concluded, the stern and side lines were taken in, leaving the burden on the bow line, as both vessels headed into the current. Customarily, according to the testimony, the tug was made fast to the bow of the barge and the bow line was cast off by a slackening of the hawser at the twin or double bitt aboard the Alabama, and then, as the tug nudged her way into the current, the men aboard the barge disengaged the eye of the hawser from the hook bitt on the barge and the hawser was taken in on the Alabama. But on this occasion, due perhaps to the absence of the mate who was eating his breakfast instead of supervising the operation of casting off, as he usually did, the tug pulled the barge astern, with rather than against the current. Accordingly, when the men at the bitts took the turns off the bitts and slacked off, and plaintiff, stationed at the chock, was guiding the heavy hawser with his foot, there never was enough slack to permit the eye of the hawser to be taken off the hook bitt on the barge. This led to an order from below to hold the line and the men behind plaintiff, perhaps instinctively but in any event with instant peril to plaintiff, put a couple of figure eights around the bitts and the hawser became taut, catching against plaintiff's foot and squeezing part of his leg into the chock. There was ample evidence to justify a finding of negligence in the manner in which the barge was operated, with rather than against the current, in the absence of the mate and in the making of the figure eights around the bitts. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the jury could have arrived at any other conclusion on the evidence; and a finding of absence of contributory negligence was also plainly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • United States v. McKee
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 3, 1955
    ...related specifically to the evidence, and thus was of the noninformative character we have had occasion to criticize, as in Smith v. Texas Co., 2 Cir., 219 F.2d 74. But no objection was taken on this ground, and the evidence was neither so equivocal nor so complicated as to warrant reversal......
  • Lanni v. Wyer
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 11, 1955
    ...of his conduct on summation. This is not the first case in which complaint has been made of his summation. See Smith v. Texas Co., 2 Cir., 219 F.2d 74. 1 Folio 1865. "* * * Well, nobody was taking care of him. They were hiring for this distorted, damaged brain, and whatever condition he was......
  • United States v. Alsup, 15252.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 4, 1955
    ... ... said Joe Hancock was entitled as an employee of Ewin Engineering Company, at Kesler Air Force Base, in the Southern Division of the Southern ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT