The Badger
| Decision Date | 11 November 1914 |
| Citation | 218 F. 81 |
| Parties | THE BADGER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Allan D. Jones, of Newport News, Va., and Bowden & Heard, of Norfolk, Va., for libelant.
Hughes & Vandeventer, of Norfolk, Va., for respondent.
On the morning of the 8th of May, 1914, the barge Badger, from Bangor, Me., to Boston, Mass., dropped anchor in the latter port about 6 o'clock, at a point in the upper harbor about four miles from the city, and the libelant, a seaman at the time in the after house of the barge, was ordered by the master to come to the forward house, where the master then was. The libelant proceeded up to the starboard side of the forward house, when, without warning or knowledge of its existence, he was suddenly struck in the face by a jet of steam and hot water, emitted from an exhaust pipe, the mouth of which was some seven feet above the main deck of the barge, and projecting from the starboard side of the forward house a few inches, at a downward angle of about 45 degrees painfully and severely burning him about the face and eyes. The libelant charges that the injuries were caused by the negligent failure of the barge to keep her appliances in a reasonably safe and seaworthy condition, and that said exhaust pipe's construction was a dangerous appliance, of which he had no knowledge; that he requested the master of the barge to send him to a hospital to have the injuries he had sustained attended to, but that the latter refused to do so and libelant was kept on board without medical treatment until its arrival at Newport News, Va., about 4 o'clock in the evening of May 11, 1914, when he voluntarily left the barge and secured medical treatment. Libelant claims that as a result of the accident he suffered great pain and anguish of body and mind, that he was badly scarred, his eyes injured, and his sight perhaps permanently impaired, causing a serious diminution in his earning capacity, and that he expended large sums of money in attempting his cure.
Respondent contends that, while libelant received the injuries complained of, they were the result of his own negligence, by his going forward on the starboard side of the house, instead of on the port side, where a safe passageway was provided for the purpose; that libelant saw the steam from the exhaust pipe, and attempted to pass through the same; that the emission of steam was an act incident to the navigation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sandanger v. Carlisle Packing Co.
... ... this case. The Titania (D. C.) 19 F. 101; The Noddleburn (D ... C.) 28 F. 855; The Troop, 128 F. 856, 63 C. C. A. 584; The M ... E. Luckenbach (D. C.) 174 F. 265; The Argo, 210 F. 873, 127 ... C. C. A. 456; The Badger (D. C.) 218 F. 81 ... Counsel ... for appellant call to our attention and strongly rely upon ... the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in ... Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 38 ... S.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171. That decision, it ... ...
- Anderson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
-
Morris v. United States, 59.
... ... Indeed, it was the duty of the captain of the vessel to obtain medical aid at the intermediate port of the Azores for the injured seaman if he had no means of affording medical attention on board. The Governor (D. C.) 230 F. 857; The Badger (D. C.) 218 F. 81; Unica v. United States (D. C.) 287 F. 177. Even though the captain was mistaken, and committed an error of judgment in believing that the appellant was shamming, this fact does not relieve the ship from the responsibility it owed to the seaman. Unica v. U. S., supra. The ... ...