Bowden v. The Sir Garnet Wolseley

E.D. New York

Bowden v. The Sir Garnet Wolseley

41 F. 896, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedMarch 28, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 41 F. 896 (Bowden v. The Sir Garnet Wolseley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowden v. The Sir Garnet Wolseley, 41 F. 896, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123 (E.D.N.Y. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, J.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by the libelant by reason of his falling through a hatch of the steam-ship Sir Garnet Wolseley. The libelant was a night-watchman on the steamer. At about 9 o’clock in the evening he undertook to sit down upon a bunker hatch upon the main deck, assuming the hatch cover to be on, and without looking to see whether the cover was on or not. The cover was not on; and the man, on sitting down, of course fell backward into the hold. The evidence shows that this hatch was sometimes without cover, and sometimes covered, as the necessity of the ship required. The accid§nt was caused by the libelantes own negligence in not looking to ascertain whether there was a cover there before he undertook to sit down upon it. The libel is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Benedict, J.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by the libelant by reason of his falling through a hatch of the steam-ship Sir Garnet Wolseley. The libelant was a night-watchman on the steamer. At about 9 o’clock in the evening he undertook to sit down upon a bunker hatch upon the main deck, assuming the hatch cover to be on, and without looking to see whether the cover was on or not. The cover was not on; and the man, on sitting down, of course fell backward into the hold. The evidence shows that this hatch was sometimes without cover, and sometimes covered, as the necessity of the ship required. The accid§nt was caused by the libelantes own negligence in not looking to ascertain whether there was a cover there before he undertook to sit down upon it. The libel is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F. 896, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowden-v-the-sir-garnet-wolseley-nyed-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack