The Edith Godden

Decision Date30 January 1885
Citation23 F. 43
PartiesTHE EDITH GODDEN.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

H. J Schenck, for libelant.

H Putnam, for claimant.

BROWN J.

On the nineteenth of January, 1883, the libelant, being a seaman on the steam-ship Edith Godden, was ordered, with others, to help hoist and lower away from the steam-ship, while lying at Port Maria, Jamaica, a fruit boat, formerly a long-boat designed to be used for the lading of cargo there. A derrick was made use of in connection with a steam-winch, and the boom of the derrick was held in place by means of a block through which ran double ropes to the foretop-mast, and the block was attached by an iron hook running inside on an iron collar which surrounded the derrick boom. After the boat had been raised and got over the ship's rail, the hook that held the derrick in place broke, and the boom fell down upon the deck, across the hatch and the rail. In falling it struck the libelant upon the shoulder, causing severe injuries, for which this libel was filed.

The evidence varies considerably, both as to the weight of the fruit boat, and as to the weights that the derrick was designed to sustain. There was a brake, designed to be applied by the foot, attached to the winch; but it was out of order. The fruit boat had been taken on board the day before the use of the same derrick, winch, and tackle, by a quiet harbor. Port Maria is an open, unsheltered roadstead; and when the boat was lowered away, there was considerable rolling and lurching of the ship. Considerable evidence for the claimants was offered to the effect that the brake, if in order, would not be proper to be used in lowering weights so heavy as this boat, which weighted somewhere from one to two tons; that the only proper mode, and the mode ordinarily in use, was by reversing the steam-winch, and managing the steam-valve by hand. In behalf of the libelants, the evidence of some experts was to the effect that the reversing of the steam-winch, and managing it by hand, was a somewhat delicate operation, that required care to prevent sudden jerks; and that special difficulty was likely to arise in this way where there was any rolling or lurching of the ship. An examination of the hook showed no defects in the iron at the place of breakage, and no apparent insufficiency. In this respect the case differs from that of The Nederland, 7 F. 926. The only cause for breakage that could be assigned was either too great a weight, or some sudden strain. The weight of proof indicates that the hook broke at the time when the order was given by the mate to reverse the winch, when there was a lurch of the vessel.

I cannot doubt that the real cause of this accident was in the over-weight, or strain incident to the use of this derrick and winch, in lowering so heavy a weight in a rolling sea. It is not a case of any latent defect; for the testimony of the experts negatives any such cause. Nor is there proof of any definite act of negligence on the part of the men that were using or handling the winch or the derrick. The machinery must therefore be deemed itself insufficient for the use to which it was applied, under the particular circumstances where it was thus used. Upon the evidence it must be inferred, moreover, that the owners were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • The Arizona v. Anelich
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1936
    ......Halverson v. Nisen, Fed.Cas.No.5,970, 3 Sawy. 562; The Edith Godden (D.C.) 23 F. 43; The Julia Fowler, supra; The Noddleburn (D.C.) 28 F. 855; Olson v. Flavel, supra; The A. Heaton (C.C.) 43 F. 592; Lafourche ......
  • Seas Shipping Co v. Sieracki
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1946
    ......561, and authorities cited. And the liability applies as well when the ship is moored at a dock as when it is at sea. See, e.g., The Edith Godden, D.C., 23 F. 43; Johnson & Co. v. Johansen, 5 Cir., 86 F. 886; The Waco, D.C., 3 F.2d 476. .           Petitioner insists, ......
  • Mesle v. Kea Steamship Corporation
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 30, 1958
    ......Supp. 431; Ladjimi v. Pacific Far East Line, D.C.N.D.Cal.1951, 97 F.Supp. 174; The Leontios Teryazos, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1942, 45 F.Supp. 618; The Edith Godden, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1885, 23 F. 43.         Cases in this category which denied recovery because unseaworthiness was not shown are The ......
  • Gillespie v. United States Steel Corporation
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 29, 1963
    ......The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 175, 23 S.Ct. 483, 47 L.Ed. 760. In the Edith Godden (D.C.) 23 F. 43, 46, which dealt with the case of a seaman injured by a defective derrick, Judge Addison Brown pointed out that in dealing ......
  • 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