The Wm. F. Babcock

• Citation: 31 F. 418
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Decision Date: 17 June 1887
• Parties: THE WM. F. BABCOCK. v. THE WM. F. BABCOCK, Her Tackle, Apparel, etc. WALSH

31 F. 418

THE WM. F. BABCOCK.

WALSH v. THE WM. F. BABCOCK, Her Tackle, Apparel, etc.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

June 17, 1887

Walter G. Holmes and O'Brien & Morrison, for libelant.

Milton Andros, for claimant.

HOFFMAN J.

The libel in this case is filed to recover damages for injuries sustained by the libelant while engaged as a stevedore in lading the cargo of the above vessel. The gang of men to which he belonged was employed in taking cases of salmon on board the vessel, and stowing them in the between-decks forward of the after-hatch. In the direct course of the men to the place where the cases were to be stowed was a hatch known as a 'trimming hatch,' which had been partly uncovered. Into this the libelant, who had just come down from the broad daylight on the wharf, stepped his foot, and the case, escaping from his grasp, struck his arm, fracturing or otherwise injuring it. The hatch was perhaps in a somewhat unusual position, being amid-ships, instead of, as is more common with trimming hatches, midway between the mid-ships line and the wings. It was about three and one-half feet square, but it was divided in the center by shifting boards which were attached to the stanchions of the between-decks. The aperture left on either side of the shifting boards was 2 1/2 feet in length by 12 or 13 inches in width. It was into this aperture that the libelant put his foot.

The usual attempt is made to show that the accident was caused by the man's own carelessness. It is said that the light in the between-decks was amply sufficient to enable him to see and avoid the hatch, with ordinary care. It is also said that he had freely indulged in beer, and that he, as is said to be usual with stevedores when at work at a late hour of the afternoon, was under its influence. With regard to the light I am of opinion that it was sufficient to enable any one apprised of the existence and position of the hatch to see and avoid it. I also am inclined to think that, with reasonable care, it might have been avoided by a stranger to the ship, who had been in the between-decks long enough to accommodate his eyes to the diminished light, but not by one ignorant of the existence of the hatch, and who had just come down from the broad daylight. The evidence that the man was sufficiently under the influence of liquor to justify us in attributing the accident to that cause is not satisfactory. If we are asked to infer that such was the case, from the usual habits of stevedores, the fact presents an additional reason why they should not be exposed to injury from traps of this kind, when it is known that their probable condition will prevent them from exercising the care and caution which at an earlier hour of the day they would have observed. The ship was provided with gratings to cover the hatch. It is not shown that any necessity of her service required that it should be left uncovered, either wholly or partially. That there was danger to be apprehended from it, under the circumstances, seems to have been recognized by one of the libelant's comrades, who immediately preceded him in the line of men carrying the cases. He testifies that he thought of warning the libelant of the existence of the hole, but...