The Saranac

• Decision Date: 12 October 1904
• Docket Number: 27.
• Citation: 132 F. 936
• Parties: THE SARANAC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

132 F. 936

THE SARANAC.

No. 27.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

October 12, 1904

Daniel Cruice and Harvey L. Brown, for libelant.

Bissell Carey & Cooke and James McC. Mitchell, for respondent.

HAZEL District Judge.

The libelant, a longshoreman, sustained personal injuries on account of a fall through a hatchway of the steamer Saranac owned by respondent, while at the port of Chicago, Ill. At the time of the accident he was in charge of and directing the manner of unloading the cargo of the steamer from the deck to the wharf or dock of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad by a gang of stevedores who were employed by an independent contractor. While thus engaged in the discharge of his duties, at about 8 o'clock on the morning of August 23, 1899, libelant stepped upon port hatch cover of No. 1 hatch on the deck of the vessel, which instantly tipped or tilted under his weight, precipitating him into the hold to the bottom of the vessel. He sustained severe and painful injuries. This proceeding to recover damages was instituted in October, 1900, and the amount of $20,000 compensatory damages is demanded. The cause came on for hearing in March 1903, but has not earlier been considered for the reason that counsel for both sides, desiring time for the submission of briefs, by mutual arrangement extended the time for so doing and reply briefs have but recently been submitted.

On the morning of the accident, the libelant came from aft forward straight to No. 1 hatchway, where a gang of stevedores were then engaged in removing sacks of cement to the wharf. The coamings which surrounded the hatchway, and upon which the covers closing the same rested, were about 1 3/8 inches wide. The dimensions of No. 1 hatchway, from which the freight had previously been unloaded, was about 15 feet athwartships, and 8 feet fore and aft. There were six hatches on the steamer Saranac, extending athwartships, each having four covers, about 3 feet and 8 inches wide, constructed of narrow boards, 2 1/2 inches thick and 3 inches wide, held close together by five 2 x 3 inch oak carlings bolted crosswise on their undersides. Their exact lengths are in dispute. Libelant claims the length of a sectional hatch cover did not exceed 8 feet and 3 inches, while the testimony of respondent places the length at from 8 feet 3 1/2 inches to 8 feet 6 inches. The libelant stepped upon the port section of the cover for No. 1 hatch, which was apparently properly and securely in position, resting on the coamings. His weight tipped or tilted the cover, causing him to fall about 17 feet through the hatch to the bottom of the ship. There is no conclusively direct evidence showing the nature or extent of any defect in the hatch or its construction. The covers had been adjusted upon the hatchway early on the morning prior to the accident by the crew under the direction of the second mate. The principal theory of libelant is that there was a structural defect in the carlings on the port hatch cover, namely, that they were bolted too far from the ends, thereby allowing a play or shifting movement beyond the edge of the coaming. Respondent claims, first, that the Saranac did not owe to libelant any duty to cover the hatchway in question; that the hatch cover, coamings, and appliances were in good condition when the vessel was delivered to the stevedores for unloading, and hence its full duty to libelant was performed when it voluntarily covered the hatchway by adjusting the cover; and, second, that the evidence leaves the question both as to the manner in which the accident occurred, and as to whether the vessel was guilty of negligence, uncertain, and therefore libelant cannot recover. A brief discussion of these points follows:

There is no doubt that the owner of a vessel, who fails to secure to a stevedore employed to load or unload the vessel a safe place to work, and a reasonably safe passway to and from such place, is liable for the acts and negligence of the master and crew in that regard. Gerrity v. Bark Kate Cam (D.C.1 2 F. 245, and cases herein cited.

The libelant employed by the contractor, as already stated, was engaged upon the steamer Saranac, directing the manner of unloading the vessel by a gang of stevedores. It is not controverted that the discharge of libelant's duty required his presence at the precise place where the mishap occurred. The rule is that a vessel in charge of stevedores or independent contractors is not liable in admiralty to such stevedores or independent contractors is not liable in admiralty to such stevedores or contractors, or to their employees, for injuries, unless a contractual relation exists between the vessel and persons injured, or on account of the failure either on the part of the owner, or those in charge of the navigation of the vessel, to perform a maritime duty or obligation, as a result of which injuries are received. The Thyra (D.C.) 114 F. 978. Ordinarily, when the cargo is loaded or unloaded under the directions of an independent contractor or master stevedore, and pursuant to contract, the duty of the ship ends when it furnishes to the stevedores a safe place in which to work, and a safe passage thereto. It has frequently been held that the vessel was not liable for injuries sustained by a stevedore falling through a hatchway which had been left open and unguarded by the employees of the contractor. In such circumstances the cases apparently hold that the vessel complies with its full duty to the stevedores when it has furnished a reasonably safe place in which to work, and an unobstructed passage thereto, suitably lighted. The Indrani, 101 F. 596, 41 C.C.A. 511; Dwyer v. National Steamship Co. (C.C.) 4 Fed. 493. Where, however, it is shown that a defect of construction or weakness of material was the proximate cause of the injury, a different rule obtains. The vessel owed to libelant a duty to exercise ordinary care in inspecting the coamings, carlings, strongbacks, and hatch covers, and is chargeable with the responsibility of furnishing covers for hatches and appliances of the character described by the proofs, in a proper condition to bear the weight properly imposed upon them. The Red Jacket (D.C.) 110 F. 224; The Yoxford (D.C.) 33 F. 521; The Phoenix (D.C.) 34 F. 760; The Rheola (C.C.) 19 F. 926; McFarland v. The J. C. Tuthill (D.C.) 37 F. 714. The important question of fact presented is whether the end carlings bolted underneath the section of the hatch cover for that portion of the hatchway through which libelant fell were so improperly placed that the hatch cover was structurally defective. The libel sets forth the manner in which the injuries were received, and, in general terms, charges that the hatch cover was improperly constructed. Notwithstanding the objections by respondent's counsel, the court on the trial permitted amendments to the libel regarding the absence of strongbacks, and that the section hatch cover in question was allowed to remain out of repair and condition. The amendments were not inapplicable to the issues raised, and the respondent was sufficiently apprised by the broad allegations of the original libel to justify their allowance. No surprise was asserted by reason of the amendments. In the circumstances, it would have been unjust to deprive libelant of his right to prove a structural defect in the hatch cover merely because he failed to distinctly and specifically state his entire case in the libel. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Vance et al., 60 U.S. 162, 15 L.Ed. 584; The Gazelle and Cargo, 128 U.S. 474, 9 Sup.Ct. 139, 32 L.Ed. 496; Benedict, Admy. (3d Ed.) Sec. 483; Davis v. Adams, 102 F. 520, 42 C.C.A. 493. The evidence of the libelant was chiefly directed towards affirmatively establishing the negligence of the respondent on account of its failure to place a strongback under the hatch cover. Much testimony was given to show such omission. Evidently the theory of proctor for libelant at the outset was that the absence of a strongback, which is a support for the hatch cover, lessened the strength of the cover, causing it to fall or tip when Patten's weight came upon it. The question as to whether a strongback was in place under the cover for the hatch is in sharp conflict. The witnesses for the libelee, who were interrogated regarding the appliances mentioned, were positive in their assertion that strongbacks were under each of the sections into which the hatch cover was divided. Notwithstanding the fact...