The Victoria
| Citation | 13 F. 43 |
| Parties | THE VICTORIA. |
| Decision Date | 01 August 1882 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
E. L. Barney and E. J. Hadley, for libelant, appellant.
Ball, Storey & Towers, for steam-ship.
The libelant was seriously injured by falling down the main hatchway of the third deck of the steam-ship Victoria, on his return from supper, just after he had reached that deck by a ladder placed in a smaller hatchway or scuttle, which is alleged to have been so dangerously near the main hatch that it was negligence to leave that hatch open. Whether it is usual to close the hatches on the third deck after the day's work is done is a disputed question in the case. The preponderance of the evidence is that it is not usual; and see Dwyer v. Nat. Steam-ship Co. 17 Blatchf. 472. The libelant had been working during the day not far from the open main hatch, and had been up and down this ladder once or twice, and had no reason to suppose that the hatch had been closed. If it was negligently left open, the negligence was that of the stevedore having charge of discharging and loading the ship, which cannot be attributed to the owners. Dwyer v. Nat. Steam-ship Co. supra; The Germania, 9 Ben. 356.
The actual negligence, however, was in removing a lamp which had hung near the foot of the ladder, and not replacing it. Rose testifies that he came down through the scuttle a short time before the plaintiff came back, found that the lamp had gone out, relighted it, and carried it aft. If that lamp had remained where it had been during the day, and had been lighted, it seems impossible that the accident should have happened; for the main hatch was forward of the scuttle, and the libelant's place of work was aft of the scuttle, and it must have been through some confusion caused by the want of light that he took the direction he did. This fault was committed by a fellow-workman who was employed on the very same job with the libelant, and the law is too well settled to be changed, excepting by congress or the supreme court, that the common employer is not liable for an injury occurring to a workman under such circumstances.
For these reasons I have felt bound to affirm the decree below. In consideration of the great hardship to the libelant, I suppose costs would not be asked against him from a court of admiralty.
Decree affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benton v. Finkbine Lumber Co.
...... negligence is that of a fellow-servant. Georgegan v. Atlas, S. S. Co., 3 Miss. 224, 22 N.Y.S. 749; Ewald. v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. 70 Wis. 36, 12 N.W. 591, 5 Am. St. Rep. 178; The Louisiana, 74 F. 748, 41 U.S. App. 324;. Harty v. Cromwell S. S. Co., The Victoria, 13 F. 43,. followed; Baron v. Detroit & C. Steam Nav. Co., 91. Mich. 585, 52 N.W. 22; Filbert v. Delaware & H. Canal. Co., 121 N.Y. 207, 23 N.E. 1104, reversing (1888) 56. N.Y.S. Ct. (24 Jones & S.) 170, 2 N.Y.S. 623; McCoy v. Empire Warehouse Co., City Ct. Brook, 10 N.Y.S. 99;. ......
-
Wilson v. Joe Boom Co., Ltd.
...... 636; Millett v. Puget Sound Iron & Steel Works, 37 Wash. 438,. 79 P. 980.). . . The. fireman was a fellow-servant of the plaintiff, both under the. rule as determined in Idaho as well as under the decisions of. other states. (The Queen, 40 F. 694; The Victoria, 13 F. 43;. The Ravensdale, 63 F. 624; Grimsley v. Hankins, 46. F. 400; Red River Line v. Cheatham, 60 F. 517, 9 C. C. A. 124; Hollis v. Widener, 228 Pa. 466, 139 Am. St. 1010, 21 Ann. Cas. 108, 77 A. 819; Moore v. Curran, 198 Mass. 60, 84 N.E. 113; Bergstrom v. Staples,. 82 Mich. ......
-
The Saratoga
...... not presumptive evidence of negligence on the part of the. ship. This is not only shown to the custom by the testimony. in this case, but it has been so frequently commented upon. in decisions as to be too well settled to be questioned. The Victoria, 13 F. 43; Dwyer v. Steamship Co., 4. Fed. 493; The Carl, 18 F. 655; The Germania, 9 Ben. 356, Fed. Cas. No. 5,360; The Helios, 12 F. 732. While the. falling through an open hatchway by a stranger, a landsman,. visitor, or passenger, on board a vessel, might not be. presumptive of negligence ......
-
Killien v. Hyde
...... understand, determines whether the case is to be treated as. one of fellow servants, or not. Quinn v. Lighterage. Co., 23 F. 363; The Queen, 40 F. 694, 696, 697; The City. of Alexandria, 17 F. 392; The City of Norwalk, 55 F. 98; The. Victoria, 13 F. 43; The Harold, 21 F. 428. Here the owner,. who was also master, was himself negligent, as I have above. said, for absence from his post in a difficult situation, and. for practically substituting in his place as pilot,. temporarily, an unlicensed person not of the proved. experience ......