Sorenson v. Alaska S. S. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3021. |
| Citation | 247 F. 294 |
| Parties | SORENSON v. ALASKA S.S. CO. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James B. Metcalfe and J. Vernon Metcalfe, both of Seattle, Wash for appellant.
W. H Bogle, Carroll B. Graves, F. T. Merritt, and Lawrence Bogle all of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before GILBERT and HUNT, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District judge.
Libel in personam for personal injuries received at Seattle by Sorenson, appellant, a seaman on the steamship Victoria owned by the corporation appellee. The following is a brief summary of the case:
The ship had a lower hold, a between-deck, a steerage deck, and a main deck, with hatches above one another. There was also an orlop or false deck below the between-deck. The ship had loaded a coal cargo, about 1,800 tons in bulk, at Boat Harbor, Canada, and went to Seattle. The coal had been poured into the bottom hold of the ship through the hatch above, and was trimmed off by specially employed trimmers. In the loading the men shoveled the coal to the sides of the ship's lower hold, until the hold was so full that the men left the lower hold and went to the between-decks compartment, when more coal, about 20 tons, was poured down into the between-decks compartment, and a pile was made which reached up in a pyramid to a point above the level of the steerage deck. This was leveled, so as to allow the steerage hatch to be closed before sailing.
Appellant himself testified that he and the crew helped trim the coal; that when the ship was at Seattle the boatswain told him 'to go down into the No. 2 hold and trim the coal away, and leave as much space as possible in the fore part of the 'tween-deck,' because the ship was going to Bellingham to take in extra cargo; 'to trim it up in the wings and in the after part, to do away with it the best way you possibly can.' He also said that they were trimming the coal up in the wings, and the after part and wings were full, and there was still a pile of coal left in the hatch, and that he came out in the coamings and cut a hole in the corner in the starboard side of the hatch coaming in the 'tween-deck. The witness continued:
'We were trimming the coal up towards the wings in the after part, and we filled that up. Only we had filled up the coal back of us, and there was still a pile of coal left aft the hatch, and in order to put the hatches on, lower the freight, and stow the freight on the hatches, we had to take this pile away. * * * I cut the hole in the corner, and the best way to get away with the coal was to go down...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co of New Jersey Waterman Corporation v. Jones
...149 F. 729. 9 The City of Alexandria, D.C., 17 F. 390; The A. Heaton, C.C., 43 F. 592; The Wensleydale, D.C., 41 F. 829; Sorenson v. Alaska S.S. Co., 9 Cir., 247 F. 294; Peterson v. The Chandos, D.C., 4 F. 645; cf. Seely v. City of New York, 2 Cir., 24 F.2d 412; cf. Reed v. Canfield, C.C., ......
-
City & Cnty. of S.F. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
... ... Ct. at 2125 (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. , 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 ); Sorenson Commc'ns Inc. v. F.C.C. , 755 F.3d 702, 708 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ("Though an agency's predictive judgments about the likely economic effects of a rule ... must require a showing of nationwide impact or sufficient similarity to the plaintiff states to foreclose litigation in other districts, from Alaska to Puerto Rico to Maine to Guam." Azar , 911 F.3d at 584. Finally, although the scope of the injunction in this action is governed by the ... ...
-
Calmar Corporation v. Taylor
...Id; The City of Alexandria, D.C., 17 F. 390; The Mars, 3 Cir., 149 F. 729, 731; Sorensen v. Alaska S.S. Co., D.C., 243 F. 280, affirmed 9 Cir., 247 F. 294; Brown v. The Bradish Johnson, C.C., Fed.Cas.No.1992, 1 Woods 301, nor is it restricted to those cases where the seaman's employment is ......
-
Loverich v. Warner Co.
...The City of Alexandria, D.C., 17 F. 390; The Mars, 3 Cir., 149 F. 729, 731; Sorensen v. Alaska S. S. Co., D.C., 243 F. 280, affirmed, 9 Cir., 247 F. 294; Brown v. The Bradish Johnson, C.C., Fed. Cas. No. 1,992, 1 Woods 301, nor is it restricted to those cases where the seaman's employment i......