The Dago
| Decision Date | 18 March 1887 |
| Citation | 31 F. 574 |
| Parties | THE DAGO. [1] v. THE DAGO. KENNY |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
W. S Benedict and Emmet D. Craig, for libelant.
E. W Huntington, for claimant.
The vessel was under charter, and, according to the general custom, furnished the rope, tackle, and appliances for hoisting in cargo. The charterers employed the stevedore, and the stevedore employed the libelant. There was no privity of contract between the owners of the Dago and the libelant, and at the time of the accident the hoisting apparatus was not under the control of the officers of the ship, but was under the control of the stevedore and his men. The rope furnished by the Dago for the hoisting tackle was new, sound, and strong, large enough, and apparently fit for the purpose intended. In this state of the case it is difficult to see how the owners of the Dago can be held liable for the injuries received by the libelant resulting from the breaking of the rope. The master is not bound to provide the safest and best machinery. He does not warrant to his servants the sufficiency of his machinery. 2 Thomp.Neg. 982, 983. And if in this case the master was not bound, still less is the ship which furnished the machinery to the master. 'The owners of a vessel are not liable for damages occasioned by the negligence of stevedores employed for a gross sum by the consignees of the charterers in unloading the cargo. ' Linton v. Smith, 8 Gray, 147. In that case the question is said to be whether the relation existing between the owners of the vessel and the stevedores was that of master and servant, or contractor and contractee. The relation was held to be that of contractor and contractee, and the owners, therefore, not liable. See also, Hilliard v. Richardson, 3 Gray, 349, in which case, and in Linton v. Smith, supra, the common law authorities are fully considered. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Phoenix
...could know, that the tackle was not safe. The Rheola, 19 F. 926; The Harold, 21 F. 428; The Carolina, 30 F. 200, affirmed, 32 F. 112; The Dago, 31 F. 574. The principle appears in The Malek Adhel, 2 How. 210, and it is illustrated in The Yoxford, 33 F. 521. The question in this case is, was......
-
Navigazione Alta Italia, of Turin, Italy v. Vale
...and the libelant, and that if any liability was incurred by the former to the latter it was not that of a master to his servant. The Dago (C.C.) 31 F. 574; Roymann v. Brown al., 105 F. 250, 44 C.C.A. 464. It may be assumed or admitted that, on the ground that the laborers employed by or und......
-
The Noranmore
... ... its condition when working in the open hatchway the day ... before the accident. Whether any liability exists against the ... ship, arising from the use of this hook by the stevedores, ... may be doubted (The Mary Steward (D.C.) 10 F. 137; The Dago ... (C.C.) 31 F. 574), though it is unnecessary to pass upon this ... question in this case. While it is true the hook was one of ... the appliances of the ship, it seems that the stevedore ... should have furnished his own tackle, which he failed to do ... But, be the question of the ship's ... ...
-
Anderson v. The Ashebrooke
...machinery, arising from wear and tear, unless a knowledge of such defeat is brought home to them.' Reliance is placed upon the case of The Dago, 31 F. 574, authorities there cited. Conceding the law to be as stated, the defense is not good in this case, because the improper location of the ......