THE WACO

Decision Date30 January 1925
Docket NumberNo. 153.,153.
Citation3 F.2d 476
PartiesTHE WACO. BROCKLEHURST v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

Carl G. Kirsch, of Philadelphia, Pa., for libelant.

Howard H. Yocum, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the United States.

THOMPSON, District Judge.

This suit was brought by Joseph M. Brocklehurst, a seaman rated as water tender upon the steamship Waco, to recover damages for personal injuries received by him in attending to his duties while engaged in putting in place a boiler cover, which slipped and fell, striking and injuring the libelant's foot. The libelant had signed upon the Waco as a water tender about one week prior to his injury. The Waco was lying at her dock at Philadelphia. He was instructed by the second assistant engineer to replace the port cover upon the port boiler. As water tender, he was a petty officer, and had two men under him, assisting in the work.

The Waco was equipped with Babcock and Wilcox marine steam boilers. The sets of tubes comprising the boiler in question are placed so that the tubes slant downward from the rear or aft end. In order to gain access to the tubes for the purpose of inspection and cleaning, they are provided with a detachable cover at the rear end, placed at right angles to their direction. The cover is rectangular, made up of two sheet iron plates riveted together, the outer plate being one-eighth inch and the inner about one-sixteenth inch in thickness. The purpose of the inner or baffle plate is to protect the outer plate from the high temperature of the boiler and prevent warping or deterioration. The cover is 73 inches in height by 41 inches in width, and weighs about 170 pounds. Owing to the inclination of the boiler, when the cover is in place, it rests at an angle leaning from its bottom toward the front of the boiler at its top.

The cover is stiffened on the inside of the baffle plate with straps of one-quarter inch metal, bent at right angles inward at the lower edge of the plate, so as to rest upon a metal frame extending around the after end of the boiler. The cover is held in place by dogs, three across the bottom, three across the top, and four down each side. These dogs consist of screw bolts, provided with pawls on the inner end and handles on the outer end, the handles being square with the pawls, so that, when turned, they attach and hold the cover tightly against the frame. When the dogs are in place, they are held in position by butterfly nuts, which, when screwed down tight, fasten them securely.

Immediately aft of the boilers is the engine room bulkhead, which is strengthened by stiffeners, 12 inches in depth. The distance from the stiffeners to the bottom of the cover, when in place, is 16 inches, and to the top of the cover 36 inches; 28½ inches below the base of the cover when in place, and above the tank of the boiler, is erected athwartship a staging or platform extending the length of the width of the boiler. It is 15 inches in width.

The libelant on the day in question, under the orders of the second engineer, and being as petty officer in charge of the work, assisted by two men, was engaged in replacing the cover, which he with two other men had removed on the morning of the same day. While so engaged, standing upon the staging, he hooked the three dogs on the bottom of the cover. One of his assistants was on the top of the boiler, and was attempting to fasten the dogs at the top, when the plate slipped and fell, and struck the libelant's left foot, causing the injuries of which he complains.

The libel charges negligence of the owner of the ship, inter alia, in failing to provide suitable and proper gear and rigging, in failing to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Seas Shipping Co v. Sieracki
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 22 April 1946
    ......760. Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 321 U.S. 96, 99, 64 S.Ct. 455, 457, 88 L.Ed. 561, and authorities cited. And the liability applies as well when the ship is moored at a dock as when it is at sea. See, e.g., The Edith Godden, D.C., 23 F. 43; Johnson & Co. v. Johansen, 5 Cir., 86 F. 886; The Waco, D.C., 3 F.2d 476. .           Petitioner insists, however, that the obligation flows from, and is circumscribed by the existence of, the contract between the owner of the vessel and the seaman. Accordingly, since there was no such contract here, it says respondent cannot recover. ......
  • Orleans Dredging Co. v. Frazie
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 20 May 1935
    ...... defect. . . Grant. v. U. S. Shipping Fleet Corp., 22 F.2d 488; Tonnawanda Iron &. Steel Co., 234 F. 198; Henry Gillen's Sons Lighterage. v. Fernald, 294 F. 520; Hoof v. Pacific American. Fisheries, 284 F. 174, 291 F. 306, 44 S.Ct. 38, 263 U.S. 712, 68 L.Ed. 520; The Waco, 3 F.2d 476; The Navarino, 7 F.2d. 743; New Zealand, 49 F.2d 781; Ives v. United. States, 58 F.2d 201; The S. S. Magdapur, 3 F.Supp. 971;. The S. S. Phoenix, 3 F.Supp. 1017. . . The. seaman does not assume a risk when acting under superior. orders. . . U. S. v. Boykin, ......
  • Williams v. Steamship Mut. Underwriting Ass'n, 32715
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 24 August 1954
    ...... The basis of a finding of unseaworthiness has in many istances been the breach of 'the equivalent of the commonlaw duty of providing a servant or employee with a safe place to work', The Waco, D.C.1925, 3 F.2d 476, 478, or, as stated in the Frank and Willie, D.C.1891, 45 F. 494, 496, a breach of the duty . '* * * to provide workmen with reasonably safe conditions for work, according to the nature of the business, and to the customary provisions for the safety of life and limb.' . ......
  • O'Hey v. Matson Nav. Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 3 October 1955
    ...... Page 89 . employer to furnish his employee with suitable appliances and a safe place to work' is erroneous. This language is almost a direct quotation from the definition of seaworthiness stated in The Waco, D.C., 3 F.2d 476, which was cited with approval in Rederii v. Jarka Corp., D.C., 82 F.Supp. 285, cases which appellant admits involved true unseaworthy conditions. .         The instruction that 'failure to maintain safe and adequate passageways on a vessel to permit necessary work may ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT