THE SHANG HO
| Citation | 13 F. Supp. 632 |
| Decision Date | 19 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 13720.,13720. |
| Parties | THE SHANG HO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Wright, Jones & Bronson, of Seattle, Wash., and Chas. A. Turner, of Everett, Wash., for libelant.
Hayden, Merritt, Summers & Bucey, of Seattle, Wash., for claimant.
NETERER, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Both parties rely on The Admiral Peoples (Kenward v. The Admiral Peoples et al.), 295 U.S. 649, 55 S.Ct. 885, 79 L.Ed. 1633 as decisive of admiralty jurisdiction. In The Admiral Peoples, supra, the injured fell while disembarking on a gangplank leading from the vessel to the dock. The gangplank placed so as to slope from the ship to the dock at a 10 or 15-degree angle, the gangplank being 2 feet wide, 11 feet long and was about 6 inches above the level of the dock. A rope railing on each side which terminated about 3 feet from the dock end; that the injured, following instructions of the ship's officer, proceeded from the ship along the gangplank, and at the lower end, unaware that it was 6 inches above the dock, having no warning, fell from the gangplank and was injured.
The court held the conflict in the cases was in fixing the line between land and water jurisdiction. Some holding the water line in disembarking was at the end of the gangplank on the dock; embarking was at the end off the gangplank on the ship.
Certiorari was granted, "in view of an asserted conflict with other decisions of the Federal Courts." 294 U.S. 702, 55 S.Ct. 546, 79 L.Ed. 1238.1
The Supreme Court appears to have definitely fixed the line. In The Admiral Peoples, supra, it says (295 U.S. 649, at page 651, 55 S.Ct. 885, 886, 79 L.Ed. 1633): In the instant case the gangplank was placed to afford ingress and egress to and from the vessel by the libelant and others in loading and storing cargo. The gangplank at the time was under the immediate control and supervision of the ship's officers, was furnished by and is a necessary part of the vessel, as much as the engine used for operating the crane, hoist, or derrick in loading cargo, and the injury occurred while libelant was using the gangplank in loading the storing cargo pursuant to orders and directions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford v. Parker
... ... Port Huron Terminal Co., 295 U.S. 647, 649, 55 S.Ct. 884, 79 L.Ed. 1631 ... In The Shang Ho, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 632, affirmed, 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 42, certiorari denied under the title of Fan Shan Hang v. Prestlien, 301 U.S. 705, 57 S.Ct. 938, 81 L.Ed. 1359, the court dealt with a case where a longshoreman who was walking from the dock to the vessel fell from the gangplank. The case was a ... ...
- Williams v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States
... ... S. 649, 55 S.Ct. 885, 79 L.Ed. 1633. The determining factor there was said to be the fact that the means of travel was furnished by and was a part of the vessel. I think it is clear that the accident, happening as stated in the libel, was a maritime accident. The Shang Ho, D.C.,13 F. Supp. 632, affirmed 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 42, certiorari denied Fan Shan Hang v. Prestliena, 301 U.S. 705, 57 S.Ct. 938, 81 L.Ed. 1359; The Berwindglen, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 992, reversed on other grounds, 1 Cir., 88 F.2d 125; Ford v. Parker, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 98; Brady v. Roosevelt S. S. Co., ... ...