The Beal

• Decision Date: 21 February 1924
• Docket Number: 7512.
• Citation: 295 F. 877
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: THE THOMAS P. BEAL. HOLMES v. CROWELL & THURLOW S.S. CO. CROWELL & THURLOW S.S. CO. v. WESTERN STEVEDORE CO.

295 F. 877

THE THOMAS P. BEAL. HOLMES v. CROWELL & THURLOW S.S. CO.

CROWELL & THURLOW S.S. CO. v. WESTERN STEVEDORE CO.

No. 7512.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division.

February 21, 1924

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Othilia G. C. Beals, of Seattle, Wash., for libelant.

Bogle Merritt & Bogle, of Seattle, Wash., for claimant and petitioner.

Stephen V. Carey and Donworth, Todd & Higgins, all of Seattle, Wash for respondent Western Stevedore Co.

NETERER District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

Rule 56 provides that:

'In any suit the claimant * * * shall be entitled to bring in any other * * * person who may be partially or wholly liable, either to the libelant or to such claimant * * * growing out of the same matter. This shall be done by petition. * * * Such petition shall contain suitable allegations showing such liability * * * and that such person ought to be proceeded against in the same suit for such damages. * * * '

The petition alleges that the Western Stevedore Company was the employer of libelant; that the appliances were in its possession and under its direct and exclusive supervision; and on information and belief charges that the worn or defective appliance was the property of such stevedoring company, and that pursuant to its contract with claimant it had obtained insurance indemnifying claimant against damages for such injury, which has been paid.

The libelant obviously had a cause of action against both stevedoring company and claimant, or either. The stevedoring company, as employer, was required to furnish the libelant a reasonably safe place within which to work, and reasonably safe appliances with which to work, and this duty extended to working place and appliances owned by the claimant and temporarily in the possession and control of the Western Stevedore Company. The fact that the appliances were owned by the ship did not absolve the stevedoring company from inspecting and using reasonable care in making the place and appliances reasonably safe. Alaska Pacific S.S. Co. v. Egan, 202 F. 867, 121 C.C.A. 225.

The service rendered by the libelant was clearly a maritime service. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 217, 37 Sup.Ct. 524, 61 L.Ed. 1086, L.R.A. 1918C, 451, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900; Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U.S. 52, 34 Sup.Ct. 733, 58 L.Ed. 1208, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1157; The Canadian Farmer (D.C.) 290 F. 601; Terminal Shipping Co. v. Hamburg (D.C.) 222 F. 1020.

Where a contract which contains covenants both maritime and nonmaritime, in case of breach the maritime may be heard in admiralty or at common law, and the nonmaritime at common law only. The Ada, 250 F. 194, 162 C.C.A. 330; Gowanus Storage Co. v. U.S.S.B.E.F. Co. (D.C.) 271 F. 528; Cal. A. S.S. Co. v. Central Door & Lbr. Co., 206 F. 5, 124 C.C.A. 139; Pacific Coast S.S. Co. v. Moore (D.C.) 70 F. 870. Admiralty affords relief where the contract involves some ingredients of a maritime nature, the substance of the whole issue being maritime. Plummer v. Webb, 19 Fed.Cas. 891, No. 11,233.

The contract between the owner and the stevedore company was for a maritime service, and the insurance obtained, as charged to cover for injury received in the maritime service, is incidental thereto, and, even though nonmaritime in itself, may be heard and determined by the admiralty court. Benedict on Admiralty, Sec. 143; Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 235 F. 385, 148 C.C.A. 647, affirmed 248 U.S. 308, 39 Sup.Ct. 112, 63 L.Ed. 261; North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Larsen, 220 F. 93, 135 C.C.A. 661; Reed v. Weule, 176 F. 660, 100 C.C.A. 212; Nash v. Bohlen (D.C.) 167 F. 427; The Conveyor (D.C.) 147 F. 586; Evans v. N.Y., etc., S.S. co. (D.C.) 145 F. 841; Alaska Packers' Ass'n v. Domenico, 117 F. 99, 54 C.C.A. 485; Rosenthal v. Louisiana, 37 F. 264; The Milwaukee Bridge (D.C.) 291 F. 711; Eureka Towing Line v. City of N.Y.(D.C.) 283 F. 858; The Minerva (D.C.) 266 F. 598; The Cetriana (D.C.) 232 F. 175; The Wilhelmina, 232 F. 430, 146 C.C.A. 424. The...