Spellman v. American Barge Line Co.
| Citation | 76 F. Supp. 1 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6365. |
| Parties | SPELLMAN v. AMERICAN BARGE LINE CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Hymen Schlesinger, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Lucian Y. Ray (of Leckie, McCreary, Schlitz & Hinslea), of Cleveland, Ohio, and Harold E. Harper (of Alter, Wright & Barron), of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
Three actions are alleged in the complaint, one being based on maintenance and cure, another being alleged unseaworthiess of the vessel and another, negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688.
Plaintiff was a seaman and was employed as a member of the crew on the motor vessel "Duncan Bruce" as a maid. The vessel was owned by the defendant and was used in navigation on the Ohio River. During plaintiff's regular tour of duty January 8, 1947 to January 18, 1947, she became ill and by reason of her illness, left the vessel January 18, 1947.
The jury found a verdict in favor of the defendant under binding instructions of the Court on the action based on unseaworthiness. It found a verdict in favor of the defendant on the other two grounds of action, namely, maintenance and cure and negligence under the Jones Act.
The case is now before us on plaintiff's motion that judgment be entered in her favor on the action for maintenance and cure and also on the motion of plaintiff for a new trial on the action for maintenance and cure if judgment in her favor is refused, and also for a new trial in the other two actions.
I will consider the motions for a new trial first.
The reason alleged in support of this motion is that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. This contention, I think, is clearly right and therefore this motion should be granted.
Plaintiff, in her motion, alleges that the Court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant on this ground. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges unseaworthiness in that the defendant failed to furnish the plaintiff with a seaworthy vessel manned and operated with a sufficient and competent crew.
Defendant, in its brief, concedes that "the decisions have extended the term `unseaworthiness' to include proper manning of a vessel." In the case of the Rolph, 9 Cir., 299 F. 52, 54, Certiorari denied, 266 U.S. 614, 45 S.Ct. 96, 69 L.ED. 468, the Court stated: See The Southwark, 191 U.S. 1, 24 S.Ct. 1, 48 L.Ed. 65; The Rolph, D.C., 293 F. 269, affirmed 9 Cir., 299 F. 52, 54; In re Pacific Mail S.S. Co., 9 Cir., 130 F. 76.
The Captain or master of the vessel "Duncan Bruce" testified, in effect, that he understood his duties in reference to a crew member who became ill or injured on the vessel to consist merely of giving such crew member a hospital ticket and putting him or her ashore. His duty as captain or master was to furnish proper medical aid under the circumstances to a sick seaman. See Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U.S. 367, 53 S.Ct. 173, 77 L.Ed. 368; Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 58 S.Ct. 651, 82 L.Ed. 993. Whether the Captain or master was a competent master was a question of fact for the jury. I am therefore of the opinion that an error was made in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. United States
......Campden-Main, the minimum standards as designed by the American Psychiatric Association reveal the following comparisons as related to ...Murphy v. American Barge Line Co., 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 61; Loverich v. Warner Co., 3 Cir., 118 F.2d ...288. . Counsel for both parties rely upon Spellman v. American Barge Line Co., Inc., 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 716, reversing D.C., 76 ......