Yates v. Dann
| Decision Date | 01 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 1051. No. 1634. |
| Parties | Corden E. YATES, Libellant, v. Rodney H. DANN, Ruby M. Dann and R. H. Dann Lighterage and Towing Company, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Henry A. Wise, Jr. (of Wise & Suddard), Wilmington, Del., Abraham E. Freedman (of Freedman, Landy & Lorry), Philadelphia, Pa., for libellant.
Stewart Lynch (of Hastings, Lynch & Taylor), Wilmington, Del., Samuel Handloff, Wilmington, Del., J. Webster Jones, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.
Libellant was engaged by respondents as a mate on the tugboat "Neptune" on February 8, 1946, under Captain Workman. Yates was a man of 12 years experience in working around the water, was engaged by Rodney H. Dann, one of the respondents, to work on respondents' tugs. Libellant was to be paid $70 a week as wages. The tug was engaged in a dredging operation.
The deckhand, Woods, assigned to libellant-Yates was engaged by Captain Workman several days before the accident happened. It is a duty of a captain or mate to instruct men regarding their duties on tugs. Evidence shows Woods performed his work as a deckhand on the "Neptune" in a satisfactory manner. Nobody ever made complaint to respondents of any unsatisfactory work on the part of Woods. On the evening of April 16, 1946, the "Neptune" was under libellant's sole charge. On that date Yates was assigned to tow certain pontoons. The deckhand secured a line about 100 to 125 feet in length from the pontoons to the after end of the tug and the tow proceeded on its course. After about 20 or 30 minutes, it was found the tow line was too short. It was impeding progress of the tow. Libellant then directed the deckhand to slack off the line to a more suitable length. However, at the time he gave the latter order, libellant observed the deckhand was unsteady and smelled of liquor. Libellant countermanded his order; after reducing the speed of the vessel, and placing the wheel in charge of one of the other dredge boat employees, he proceeded aft to pay out the line himself. Since the accident occurred about 10:00 p. m., there were only the towing lights illuminating the vessel, which made the faint outlines of the structures visible but no details. As libellant lifted up the line, preparatory to taking off sufficient turns so that it could run out slowly, the line, after it was lifted up only about one-half to one turn, suddenly ran out of control, catching libellant's right foot and crushing it against the bitt. The bones of libellant's right leg and foot, the tendons, circulatory and nervous systems were torn, fractured and mutilated. The master fact as to what happened as libellant ran out the line will be discussed fully later.
Libellant was taken to the Bullock Hospital in Wilmington, North Carolina, in great pain, and an operation was performed. He remained there for thirteen days and was then moved to the United States Marine Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. He remained as an in-patient in the United States Marine Hospital in Norfolk until June 10, 1946, and was then transferred to out-patient status. While libellant was still under treatment at the United States Marine Hospital in Norfolk, he was compelled, because of financial necessity, to report to respondents for employment. He proceeded to the job on crutches, which he discarded when he boarded the vessel, and thereafter he performed his duties by hopping around as best he could. He continued to perform his duties until he could no longer physically do so on August 15, 1946, and he continued the hospital treatments at the United States Marine Hospital in Norfolk. He again returned to work on December 9, 1946, although he was still in need of treatment and was still under the care of the Marine Hospital in Norfolk, but his return was again prompted by financial necessity. Thereafter, he worked for various employers, going from one to the other, and his changes of employment were affected by his physical inability to perform the work and his need for further treatment. Throughout this latter period of employment, libellant's condition became aggravated; his injured foot became more swollen, despite his efforts to seek the kind of employment which would not require long standing or use of the injured leg. He reported back for treatment at the United States Marine Hospital in May of 1951, where it was found he was still suffering and in need of treatment. He was instructed regarding treatment of the leg again at that time. He was never discharged from treatment by the Marine Hospital in Norfolk.
Libellant suffered severe pain because of the fractures and mutilation of his right leg and foot and from a neuroma which has further aggravated his condition; libellant's injuries were aggravated and his disability prolonged because of the failure to obtain adequate rest and because of his premature return to work occasioned by economic necessity.
Respondents' failure to provide maintenance to libellant resulted in prolongation of libellant's injuries, which have required treatment in the past and which will require treatment in the future.
This is an action by a merchant seaman to recover: a. indemnity damages; and b. maintenance and cure. The cause of action for negligence and damages was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of Yates, but failed to properly assess the damages in accordance with the charge of the court. After motion, I entered an order granting judgment in favor of libellant, and ordered a new trial limited to the question of damages only. The cause of action for maintenance and cure, agreed by the parties to be decided on the basis of the same facts adduced at the jury trial, was held in abeyance to be determined along with the damage action at the new trial. Upon motion, the action was transferred to the admiralty side of the court, and a new trial was directed to damages, and maintenance and cure. See, D.C.Del., 11 F.R.D. 386. The case is now ready for disposition of those two issues.
Damages:
1. The extent of libellant's past losses;
2. The impairment in libellant's future earning power;
3. The value of libellant's pain and suffering, past and future, and the deprivation to the libellant of the pleasures of life resulting from the injuries.
Maintenance and Cure:
Were the respondents obligated to provide libellant with maintenance and cure following his injury, and, if so, did the obligation continue during the period libellant returned to work for respondents during which he was in need of or could be benefited by medical care and maintenance?
The Tugboat "Neptune", owned and operated by respondents, was under the command of Captain Walter S. Workman.1 It was engaged in tending dredge for the American Dredging Company to deepen the channels of the Brunswick and Cape Fear Rivers from Wilmington, North Carolina, to Southport, and thence into the Atlantic Ocean.2 The "Neptune" was specifically assigned to move the barges and pontoons, inter alia, in connection with the dredging operation.
Libellant had been following the sea for about twelve years. He was assigned to Captain Workman as mate on the "Neptune" for the night watch.3 The deckhand on that watch, Wood, engaged by Captain Workman a few days before the accident,4 had worked with Yates about three watches, and, from Yates' observation, the deckhand seemed to know what he was doing.5
On April 16, 1946, Yates was assigned to tow certain pontoons from the mouth of Redmond Creek in the Cape Fear River to a dredge which was operating in the Brunswick River.6 At the commencement of the watch about 6:00 p. m., Wood seemed to be normal. At about 10:00 p. m. the vessel arrived at the point where the pontoons were located and the deckhand secured the lines from the pontoons to the bitts on the after end of the tug. The line was about 100 to 125 feet in length.7 The tug then proceeded with the tow, with Yates at the wheel and six others on board: Wood, the deckhand, and five other men from the dredge under the command of one Reynolds.8 After the tow had been underway for about 20 or 30 minutes, it became apparent the backwash from the wheel of the tug was holding up the progress of the tow and retarding its speed.9 Libellant decided to lengthen the tow line. He called the deckhand to the wheel house and directed him to pay out more line.10 As the deckhand answered him, libellant observed the latter was very unsteady and he smelled from liquor.11 Libellant thereupon countermanded his own order because he felt the deckhand was not competent to carry it out.12 He cut the throttle down and reduced the speed of the tug to the point where it was simply making steerage into the tide, and requested Reynolds to take the wheel while he went aft to slack off the line himself.13 As he proceeded aft, there were three towing lights up, which cast a small amount of illumination over the area, sufficient so he could see the general outlines of the structures of the vessel, but there was no light in the area of the bitts, and the rope as it was coiled around the bitts was not clearly discernible.14 Normally, when a line is slacked off under these circumstances, several lays of the line may be removed before it will start to run, and one quick turn of the line is sufficient to stop the line from running out.15 On this occasion, when he reached the bitts, he lifted the line a half-turn to a full turn, and the line suddenly began to run out, completely out of control, and although he tried to escape, his right leg was caught by the running line and crushed against the starboard bitt.16 So violent was the injury his leg and foot were mutilated and almost completely torn off at the ankle, and the ankle and foot were hanging down limp.17 His leg was released only after the line was cut with an ax, and the vessel then headed for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vaughan v. Atkinson, 92-6075
...actual earnings. Perez v. Suwanee S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 239 F.2d 180. In three cases setoff of actual earnings has been denied. In Yates v. Dann, D.C., 124 F.Supp. 125, the district judge found that the seaman had been 'in need' throughout the whole period and should not be 'penalized' because ......
-
Petition of United States Steel Corporation
...Steamship Company, 184 F.Supp. 545 (D.Del.1960); Vastano v. Partownership Brovigtank, 158 F.Supp. 477 (E.D. N.Y.1957); Yates v. Dann, 124 F.Supp. 125 (D.Del.1954). The Commissioners made awards in this category to each of the personal injury claimants ranging from $3,500 (to Mulka) to $65,2......
-
Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc.
...California Tanker Co., 2 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 369, certiorari denied, 1959, 359 U.S. 926, 79 S.Ct. 609, 3 L.Ed.2d 628; Yates v. Dann, D.C.D.Del. 1954, 124 F.Supp. 125, reversed on other grounds, 3 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d The second item is cure, which relates to the expense of medical treatmen......
-
Hudspeth v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc.
...Keefe v. America Pacific S/S Co., S.D. Cal.1953, 110 F.Supp. 853. 21 Curd v. United States, E.D.La.1954, 118 F.Supp. 921. 22 Yates v. Dann, Del.1954, 124 F.Supp. 125. 23 See, for example, the following cases in which the rate was fixed by agreement of the parties: Creppel v. J. W. Banta Tow......