Wood v. Davis
| Decision Date | 03 July 1923 |
| Docket Number | 4040. |
| Parties | WOOD v. DAVIS, Agent, etc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
A. H King and George C. Bedell, both of Jacksonville, Fla (Roswell King, of Jacksonville, Fla., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
W. E Kay, of Jacksonville, Fla. (Thomas B. Adams and R. Ragland both of Jacksonville, Fla., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
By this suit, brought in a Florida state court and removed to the court below, the plaintiff in error, G. M. Wood, sought to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from his falling in a hatch in the deck of the steamboat Osceola, while it was in the waters of the St. Johns river, moored to a wharf at Jacksonville, and undergoing general repairs. An agreed statement of facts showed the following:
Prior to and at the time of his injury Wood was employed by the day to do carpenter work involved in the repair of the boat. One Lucas, who was a member of the boat's crew while it was in operation, and then paid by the month, was employed and paid by the hour as a helper in overhauling the boat's machinery while the boat was laid up for repairs and overhauling. The making of the repairs on the boat was under the general superintendence of the superintendent, one Haynes, a foreman, Jones, being immediately in charge of the repair work in which Wood was engaged, and the chief engineer, Thompson, having immediate supervision of Lucas and the work he was doing. During the afternoon of the day Wood was hurt he was doing carpenter work in the after part of the lower deck of the boat. About 3 o'clock in the afternoon he left his work at that place and went to the forward part of the deck to get a drink of water. When he reached the water cooler, he found there several other employees who had gone to the water cooler for the same purpose.
While waiting for an opportunity to get a drink of water, Wood stepped backwards and fell into an open hatch, about two feet square, in the deck. That hatch was used to get to and from machinery in the boat's hold. Prior to Wood falling into the hatch, Lucas had been directed by Thompson to go down into the hold where the hatch was and replace and repair some filter boxes, which constituted a part of the boat's machinery. For the purpose of going into the hold Lucas removed the metal cover or grating from the hatch, laying it to one side, and then went down in the hold, where he remained, doing the work assigned to him, for an hour and a half or two hours, during which time the hatch was left open, so that Lucas could have light by which to do his work. After being in the hold for the period mentioned and not having sufficient light, Lucas came out of the hold, and, without replacing the cover or grating over the hatch, went around on the deck to the engine room to get an electric light attachment, to give him more light for his work in the hold. Wood fell into the hatch during the period of about five minutes between the time Lucas came out of the hold and the time he returned to the hatch. The metal cover or grating provided for the hatch was ample and sufficient when in place to make that part of the deck safe.
At the time Wood was injured the boat's captain was sick in a hospital. during that afternoon Haynes, the superintendent Thompson, the engineer, and Jones, foreman, were not upon or about the boat. The court directed a verdict for the defendant. After Wood was injured, he was carried to a hospital and treated. The evidence indicated that this was done at the expense of the boat or its owner. It was not claimed that there was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Isgett v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
...using, or negligently failing to use, appliances provided by the employer, are not defects for which the employer is liable. Wood v. Davis, 5 Cir., 290 F. 1. Nor is it actionable negligence that an employer fails to anticipate lack of care on the part of an employee. McGivern v. Northern Pa......
-
Mahnich v. Southern Co
...Iron & Steel Co., D.C., 234 F. 198; Payne v. Jacksonville Forwarding Co., D.C., 280 F. 150; The Daisy, 9 Cir., 282 F. 261; Wood v. Davis, 5 Cir., 290 F. 1; Hammond Lumber Co. v. Sandin, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 760; Benedict Admiralty, 6 Ed., Vol. 1, p. 9 See Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ......
-
McGivern v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...failing to use appliances furnished by the employer are not defects for which the employer may be held responsible in damages. Wood v. Davis, 5 Cir., 290 F. 1; Stone v. Bennett, 194 Mich. 441, 160 N.W. 645; M. E. Gillioz, Inc., v. Lancaster, 195 Ark. 688, 113 S.W.2d 709; Phillips v. Keltner......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Dixon
...using, or negligently failing to use, appliances provided by the employer, are not defects for which the employer is liable. Wood v. Davis, 5 Cir., 290 F. 1. Nor is it actionable negligence that an employer fails to anticipate lack of care on the part of an employee. McGivern v. Northern Pa......