Stewart v. United States

Decision Date16 April 1928
Docket NumberNo. 18445.,18445.
Citation25 F.2d 869
PartiesSTEWART v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

Matt A. Grace (of J. D., M. A. & E. H. Grace), of New Orleans, La., for libelant.

Edouard F. Henriques, Sp. Asst. in Admiralty to U. S. Atty., and W. B. Spencer, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La., for the United States.

BURNS, District Judge.

Libelant was employed as first assistant engineer on the respondent government's steamship West Erral. He commenced work at New Orleans on October 8, 1925, but did not sign shipping articles until two days later. As first engineer libelant was peculiarly situated with respect to the seaworthiness of the ship, in so far as the engine and fire rooms were concerned. The evidence shows that he was in direct charge of the engine supplies and necessaries, being responsible directly to the chief engineer for those needed in the engine room, and had direct supervision of those needed in the fire room, which were requisitioned by the junior engineers.

Libelant was injured on a return voyage from France and Belgium by the bursting of a glass water gauge which he had personally installed just before to replace one previously broken. A piece of glass entered his eye, the sight of which he ultimately lost. He contends that the absence of a chain device on the upper and lower cocks operating the water and steam valves for this gauge, by means of which chain the valves may be operated from the fire room floor, some 16 feet below the glass gauge and out of all danger, was the proximate cause of his injury. In the absence of this chain he stood on a middle grating, some 4 feet only below the glass gauge, to repair and test it, so that the upper part of his body and head were abreast of it.

The failure of libelant to protest the absence of this chain before signing shipping articles, and his failure to make requisition for same, or check and correct the failure of his junior engineers to do so, either before the voyage commenced or during the ship's stay in ports of call, both at Havre and Antwerp, is clearly the remote cause of the accident, and this contributory negligence should, as I understand the law, materially decrease the quantum to be allowed him as damages. There is other evidence tending to show that he might have replaced and tested the glass in a safer manner, but it does not preponderate to the extent necessary to charge him with liability for the proximate cause of the injury; nor is it sufficient to relieve the respondent owner of its liability to furnish him with a safe place to work and with safe appliances, more particularly since the chief engineer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Gibbs v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • November 29, 1950
    ...v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1927, 7 F.Supp. 14; U. S. S. B. E. F. C. v. Greenwald, 2 Cir., 1927, 16 F.2d 948; Stewart v. United States, D.C.E.D.La.1928, 25 F.2d 869; Howarth v. U. S. S. B. E. F. C., 2 Cir., 1928, 24 F.2d 374; Ives v. United States, 2 Cir., 1932, 58 F.2d 201; Stratton v. U......
  • Calmar Corporation v. Taylor
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1938
    ...F. 92, at page 95; The Bouker No. 2, supra, 2 Cir., 241 F. 831, at page 835; The Santa Barbara, 2 Cir., 263 F. 369, 371; Stewart v. United States, D.C., 25 F.2d 869, 870; Marshall v. International Mercantile Marine Co., 2 Cir., 39 F.2d 551, 553; cf. Holt v. Cummings, 102 Pa. 212, 48 Am.Rep.......
  • Sanguinetti v. Moore Dry Dock Co.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1951
    ...comparative negligence doctrine which applies under the Jones Act. (See The J. H. Hillman, 3 Cir. (1939), 108 F.2d 231; Stewart v. United States, D.C. (1928), 25 F.2d 869.) Substantial evidence was introduced by defendant in support of its position. Assuming that plaintiff had shown injurie......
  • Mandel v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 16, 1951
    ...e.g. Krey v. United States, 2 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 1008; Sevin v. Inland Waterways Corp., 5 Cir., 1937, 88 F.2d 988; Stewart v. United States, D.C. E.D.La.1928, 25 F.2d 869. See Gibbs v. United States, D.C.N.D.Cal.1950, 94 F. Supp. 586, 589 n. 16 In that case it was stated that: "* * * Cong......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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