The Reliance

• Decision Date: 01 January 1880
• Citation: 2 F. 249
• Parties: DUNLAP v. STEAMBOAT RELIANCE, etc.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Georgia

2 F. 249

DUNLAP v. STEAMBOAT RELIANCE, etc.

United States Circuit Court, D. Georgia.

1880

R. R Richards and H. C. Cunningham, for libellant.

Lester & Ravenel, for respondent.

WOODS C.J.

The Reliance was a passenger and freight steamboat, making regular trips by the middle route between Jacksonville Florida, and Savannah, Georgia. On September 3, 1878, about 10 o'clock P.M., she left Jacksonville, bound for Savannah. On that trip the libellant was a pay passenger. Between 11 and 12 o'clock on the night of that day, as the Reliance was going up the St. Mary's river, one of her boilers exploded. The result of the explosion was to throw overboard her other boiler and to break in the lower forward saloon.

At the time of the explosion the libellant was sitting on the port side of the upper deck. He was thrown upwards by the explosion and fell upon the deck 10 or 12 feet from where he had been sitting at the time of the explosion. His right leg was broken at the neck of the trachanter, and his elbow and hand were bruised. He was taken to a hospital in Savannah for treatment, and for weeks suffered great pain from his injuries. As a result of the fracture he was crippled for life, his injured leg being shortened about an inch and a half.

The libellant was an Episcopal clergyman, and at the time of his injuries aged 37 years, and was of sound bodily health. At the time of the explosion William Moultrie, first engineer of the boat, was in charge of the engine; he was killed by the explosion; he went on duty at 6 o'clock that evening. Mark Davis was fireman on duty at the same time.

John Sherman was second engineer, and was relieved by Moultrie at 6 o'clock. When Moultrie relieved him he told Sherman that when the latter came on watch again that night he should keep a strict lookout for everything, and to be sure to keep his eyes on the pump and to see that it continued to work.

At the time of the explosion, Moultrie, the engineer, was in his usual position, in full view of the glass and water-gauges.

The explosion was preceded by a humming or whistling noise, and water and ashes came from under the port boiler and were blown forward.

The testimony touching the character of Moultrie, the engineer on duty when the explosion took place, was conflicting; some of the witnesses spoke of him as a sober, careful and competent engineer, and very faithful and attentive to his duties. One witness, however, stated that about two weeks before the explosion he saw him on the wharf at Savannah, while the boat was getting up steam, so drunk as to be unfit to run an engine in any steamer. The witness said he spoke to Mr Benson, the agent of the boat, about the condition of Moultrie at that time, and Mr. Benson said the company intended to get rid of him as soon as possible.

The evidence showed that the boilers and machinery of the boat were in good order and repair just before the explosion. The boilers had been repaired and inspected in August preceding, and a short time before the trip on which the explosion occurred had been cleaned out, and were apparently sound and good. The pump was a good one, and had never been known to fail.

There was a glass water-gauge, and there were water-cocks for ascertaining the quantity of water in the boilers. The evidence showed that it was necessary to try the water-cocks, as well as to examine the glass water-gauge, in order to ascertain the height of the water in the boilers; that it was not prudent to rely entirely on the glass water-gauge, which was likely to choke up and deceive the engineer. There was some conflict in the evidence whether it was customary on the boat to test the water by the water-cocks.

After the explosion a piece of the bottom of one of the boilers was found in the boat. It was hard and brittle, and broke under the shears. Its tensile strength had been lost to the extent of 5,000 or 6,000 pounds by being heated and chilled. It had been burnt by fire. It was in evidence that it was the duty of an engineer to prevent the burning of his boilers, and that when they were allowed to burn there was a presumption of negligence.

The Reliance was allowed to carry 80 pounds of steam, but she not unfrequently carried from 82 to 83 pounds, and it was often necessary for her to carry this amount to make up her time. Just before the explosion the steam-gauge in the cabin indicated a steam pressure of 72 pounds.

The libellant was without fault, and his injuries were received without any negligence or carelessness on his part.

The carriers of passengers are not insurers of the safety and lives of those whom they carry. Ang. on Car. Sec. 536; 2 Greenl.on Ev. 222; Christie v. Griggs, 2 Camp. 79; Israel v. Clark, 4 Esp. 259; Aston v. Heavier, 2 Esp. 533; Meir v. Penn. R. Co. 64 Penn.St. 225; McPadden v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co. 44 N.Y. 478; Daniel v. Metropolitan R. Co. L. Rep. 5 H.L. 45.

Nevertheless, a carrier of passengers is bound to exercise the utmost knowledge, skill and vigilance to carry his passengers in safety. Curtis v. The Rochester & Syracuse R. Co. 18 N.Y. 543; Steamboat New World v. King, 16 How. 469; Stokes v. Suttonstall, 13 Pet. 181.

In the last case cited the supreme court says: 'It is certainly a sound principle that a contract to carry passengers differs from a contract to carry goods. For the goods the carrier is answerable at all events, except an act of God and the public enemy. But, although he does not warrant the safety of the passengers at all events, yet his undertaking and liability as to...