Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

there are many acts in the management of a ship in which the master acts as the representative of the owners, and per

vessel damages for the loss of the society and support of their deceased relations and for their personal effects. The E. B. Ward, Jr., 23 Fed. R. 901.

In the case of The Titan, 23 Fed. R. 413, the court held that a deckhand not on duty at the time of collision could recover for injuries inflicted on him by collision, both vessels being in fault; the pilot, who was in command, being treated as the vice-principal, and his acts considered as the acts of the owner.

Falling into the hold: It is not negligence per se for the master of a ship to leave its hatchways uncovered while his vessel is at a dock taking in or discharging cargo; and where injury is sustained by one falling through such open hatch, the vessel is not liable where the circumstances are such that a person walking about the decks of the vessel has notice of the probable presence of an open hatch or may reasonably be charged with such notice. Dwyer v. National Steamship Co., 4 Fed. R. 493; The Germania, 9 Ben. 353.

In the case of The Carl, 18 Fed. R. 655, a laborer was employed by the consignee of a cargo with a

number of other men to remove

the same from between the decks of a steamer, three hatches above and three below being open. While the libelant was at work between the decks the deck-hands above put on the hatch covers, while washing the deck, thus darkening the space between the decks where libelant

was at work. Forgetting this open lower hatch he stepped into it and fell and was injured. Held, that the libelant was guilty of such negligence that he could not re

Cover.

In the case of The Thereasina, 31 Fed. R. 90, where a stevedore stepped on a cover of a scuttle which had been temporarily misplaced, and was precipated, by its tipping, into the hold, where the scuttle was one of common use, and no actual negligence was shown, it was held no recovery could be had.

In the case of Doyle v. The Jersey City, 46 Fed. R. 134, where a stevedore was employed by a charterer of a vessel to put a refrigerator into the hold, and on leaving his work at midnight fell down an open hatchway, and libeled the boat for damages, on the ground that the hatch was not covered and the vessel had no lights to indicate the open hatch; when the evidence showed that it was customary to leave the hatches open until the vessel was loaded, and the fact of its being open was known to libelant, it was held that the ship owed no duty to supply lights or to cover its hatches.

Where libelant was a workman

engaged in loading a vessel with grain from an elevator, and, in moving the grain spouts from one hold to another, stepped upon a covered hatch, which, by reason of its warped condition, gave way and precipitated the libelant to the hold below, it was held that the vessel

forms the duties and functions of the owners, such as maintaining the ship and her apparel in a safe and seaworthy condition, for which, if negligently performed, the vessel and its

was liable. The Yoxford, 33 Fed. R. decks, the hatch being ordinarily 521. covered and passengers allowed to walk over it, there being no light to enable libelant to see the changed condition or other precautions to prevent passengers walking into it, the vessel was held liable. Behrens v. The Furnessia, 35 Fed. R. 798.

In the case of Enquit v. The New York and Cuba Mail S. S. Co., 50 Fed. R. 325, libelant sued for damages for being precipitated into the hold of a vessel by reason of the warping of the supports of the hatchcovers, this fact being unknown to the libelant, who had recently shipped. Held, that the vessel was liable for the resulting injuries.

In the case of Cannon v. The Protos, 48 Fed. R. 919, it was held the vessel was liable for damages for leaving a small hatch unguarded and exposed when the vessel was unloading, where it might reasonably be expected that persons passing, in unloading, might fall into it, the deck being dark and unlighted.

Where a workman was trimming grain under a hatch in the hold of a vessel, when the seamen were placing in position the hatch-cover, he stood aside while it was being lifted into place, but resumed his labor on being ordered to do so by the mate. The seamen, in attempting to crowd the hatch-covers into place, caused one to slip and fall through the hatch and into the hold below, causing injuries for which the ship was held liable. Crawford v. The Wells City, 38 Fed. R. 47.

Where a steerage passenger, coming down from the main deck to his quarters below, fell through the fore-hatch in the lower between

Where a hatch had been left open so that a roundsman employed as a watch, and coming on board in the performance of his duty, without fault on his part fell into the hold, it was held that the vessel was liable. The Guillermo, 26 Fed. R. 921. Where a landsman comes aboard a vessel and is injured through defective or unprotected ladders, hatchways, etc., where the owner is at fault for failing to take ordinary care to render the same safe, he may recover compensation for injuries received if he is free from negligence. The Joseph Stickney, 31 Fed. R. 156.

A passenger's right to recover damages for falling down an open hatchway negligently left open by the vessel's officers is within the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts, and such liability may be enforced by proceeding in rem against the vessel. The City of Panama, 101 U. S. 453; The Harmonica, 10 Ben. 512.

Vessels are held to a reasonable degree of diligence in looking after the welfare and safety of those who are rightfully upon them, and

owners are liable; but for the ordinary details of navigation the officers and crew are fellow-servants in a joint undertaking.

are liable for negligence in failing in any duty it owes to those whose business or occupation renders their presence necessary aboard; and the vessel must provide reasonable guards, precautions, lights and other appliances for the safe performance of the duty imposed by it upon those under its employ;

and it is the duty of those having a vessel in charge while in port to protect shore laborers and others employed about its decks from falling into open hatches, and for lack of such reasonable protection the owners are liable. The Max Morris, 24 Fed. R. 860; affirmed, 28 Fed. R. 881.

CHAPTER II.

RULES AND REGULATIONS.

Sec. 18. Power of congress to prescribe rules of navigation. The constitution gives to congress power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and it has always been understood that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate navigation as fully as if that power had been expressly stated in distinct terms. The term "commerce" includes navigation, and extends to all the instrumentalities by which it is carried on, whether the same be by land or sea; and all laws passed by congress regulating the management of ships and shipping, whether foreign, inland or coastwise, are but the exercise of undisputed authority conferred by the constitution. The power of congress to regulate commerce does not extend to that commerce wholly internal to any particular state, even though it be carried on by means of navigable waters. The power to regulate commerce applies only to the external transactions of the nation and to that internal commerce carried on between the several states.* Thus, the power of congress to regulate steamboats, requiring them to carry life-preservers and appliances for extinguishing fires, requiring their boilers to be inspected, and other regulations of a general character, do not apply to vessels navigating between ports of the same state exclusively, doing no business outside the limits of that state;'

1 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; The Bark Chusan, 2 Story, 455.

2 Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541, 548; Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Board of R. R. Commissioners, 18 Fed. R. 10.

3 Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U.

S. 69; Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485; Edye v. Robertson, 112 U. S. 580; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 18 How. 421.

4 The Bright Star, 1 Wood, 266; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1.

5 The Thomas Swan, 6 Ben. 42.

but when vessels are engaged in interstate commerce, no matter how limited the amount, they are under the laws of congress, and subject to its regulations. Though a vessel be engaged wholly in the internal commerce of a state, if it uses the navigable waters of the United States it is subject to admiralty jurisdiction for all acts committed while on such navigable water, and is within the laws of congress governing the liability of vessel-owners.2

Sec. 19. International regulations.-Long before statute regulations were adopted by any maritime nation, the customs and practices of seamen had established certain rules to prevent collisions, which admiralty courts observed in their adjudications of causes coming before them, and which are the foundation of those rules now adopted by nearly every maritime nation of the globe, and which may now be said to form part of the general maritime law as administered by the courts of this country. In the year 1863 England adopted a system of rules, by orders in council, based upon the navigation rules then prevailing upon the high seas. These were with some alterations adopted again in 1868. The English rules of 1863 were substantially adopted by congress in 1864,3 and were adopted by a large part of the maritime world, and have been with slight alterations in force ever since. In 1884 Great Britain adopted the Revised Code of International Regulations, for preventing collisions at sea, and in 1885 congress adopted the same.' In 1889 representatives of over thirty of the maritime nations of the world assembled at the city of Washington to discuss and revise the international code of rules, and to suggest such further changes and modifications as experience had shown to be necessary. The recommendations of this convention were adopted by act of congress August 19, 1890,5 to go into effect when proclaimed by the President.

1The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557. Steamship Co., 102 U. S.

2 Lord v.

541.

3 U. S. R. S., sec. 4233.
423 U. S. Stat. at L. 438.
526 U. S. Stat. at L. 320.

« AnteriorContinuar »