The Maharajah
| Decision Date | 25 November 1889 |
| Citation | 40 F. 784 |
| Parties | THE MAHARAJAH. v. THE Maharajah. ENNIS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Robert D. Benedict, for libelant.
Butler Stillman & Hubbard, (Wilhelmus Mynderse, of counsel,) for claimants.
On the afternoon of September 22, 1883, the libelant, while operating a winch on board the steamer Maharajah, lost the thumb and two fingers of his right hand, which were crushed between the cogs of the wheel and the reversing lever. The crank-bar, which let the steam on and off, was turned by a horizontal handle four and one-half inches long the end of which, when turned inwards, came within three inches of the cog-wheel. While turning the handle, the libelant's hand accidently slipped off, and was caught by the cogs. The libelant seeks to hold the vessel answerable for his injuries, on the ground that the winch was an old and dangerous machine, because it had no covering or protection like the more recent machines, and because the handle ran dangerously near the cogs. It is also alleged that the machinery was out of order.
Though the evidence shows that there was some escape of steam after the libelant had asked for more steam, the weight of proof, I think, is against the contention that the machine was out of repair or out of order, or that it had ever had any covering or was ever in a condition substantially different from that in which the libelant was working it, and in which it had been long used. Nor does the evidence show that the escape of waste steam contributed to the accident. The libelant does not testify that the steam made the handle more slippery, or embarrassed him in his work. The moisture, for aught I know may have made his hold more secure, rather than weaker. The winch was put in the vessel about 12 years before. It was of the kind then in ordinary use. Soon afterwards, improvements in winches were made, and during the last few years the cog-wheels in new winches have been usually provided with coverings, and are thereby safer for use. The Maharajah had one winch of the new pattern and two of the old. Though the handle on this machine came within three inches of the cogs, it is not shown to be different in this respect from the winches formerly in general use. The libelant was a longshore-man, employed by the day or hour. He was hired to work this winch. No skill was necessary, only care. Whatever liability there was to accident from the hand's slipping was visible and plain. It was not a concealed or unsuspected danger, but one as well known to the workmen as to the employer. The master can only be held liable on the ground of negligence, or for some breach of duty. The question, then, comes down to this: Is it negligence, or a breach of legal duty, for a master to hire men to work upon an old machine merely because there are newer and safer ones in use? As respects travel on steam railways, many of the courts of this country hold the carrier bound to keep pace with new inventions in the direction of safety. But this rule is an exceptional one, established upon grounds of public policy, and for the safety of human life. It has never been applied to the relation of master and servant. There the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oil Co v. Smith
...defense was allowed, the employee was thought to have had the status of a stevedore or shore worker and not that of a seaman. The Maharajah, D.C., 40 F. 784; Cunard S.S. Co. v. Smith, 2 Cir., 255 F. 846; Hardie v. New York Harbor Dry Dock Corp., 2 Cir., 9 F.2d 545; Skolar v. Lehigh Valley R......
-
Omaha Bottling Company v. Theiler
... ... plaintiff's injury. See Northern Central R. Co. v ... Husson, 101 Pa. St. 1; Iron-Ship Building Works v ... Nuttall, 119 Pa. St. 149; Titus v. Bradford, B. & K ... R. Co. 136 Pa. St. 618; Washington & G. R. Co. v ... McDade, 135 U.S. 574; "The Maharajah," 40 F ... 784; Lafflin v. Buffalo & S.W. R. Co. 106 N.Y. 136; ... Georgia P. R. Co. v. Propst, 83 Ala. 526; Kelly ... v. Southern M. R. Co. 28 Minn. 99; Louisville & N ... R. Co. v. Hall, 87 Ala. 722; Kolsti v. Minneapolis & S. L. R. Co. 32 Minn. 134; Michigan C. R. Co. v ... Coleman, 28 ... ...
-
Skolar v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 324.
...than that of a seaman in determining whether the doctrine of assumption of risk should be held applicable. See The Maharajah, 40 F. 784, 785 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); Cunard S. S. Co. v. Smith, 255 F. 846 (C. C. A. 2); Yaconi v. Brady & Gioe, Inc., 246 N. Y. 300, 306, 158 N. E. 876. The facts be......
-
Lunney v. The Concord
...class now more commonly use, instead of following the older fashion of movable ladders, provided they were reasonably sufficient. The Maharajah, 40 F. 784, affirmed C. C. A. 181, 49 F. 111; The Serapis, 2 C. C. A. 102, 51 F. 91. The evidence leaves no doubt that the rung broke in consequenc......