The Emmy

55 F. Supp. 60, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2365
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 1944
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 F. Supp. 60 (The Emmy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Emmy, 55 F. Supp. 60, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2365 (S.D.N.Y. 1944).

Opinion

LEIBELL, District Judge.

Libellant, Peter Gambera, brought this action against the S. S. “Emmy” and her owner (Andrew Bergoty, also known as Andreas Vergottis) for personal injuries suffered by libellant when he fell through an unprotected open hatch, in the tween decks coal bunker section of the ship, on the morning of December 23, 1939. At the time of the accident he was employed as a fireman and he had been sent to wheelbarrow and shovel some coal from the tween decks bunker to a chute emptying into the fireroom. The tween decks section was dark with only a single light at one end and as the libellant walked slowly towards the light he fell through the open hatch sustaining serious injuries. There is no question about the accident and that some of the injuries received were permanent, but respondent argues that libellant was not a member of the ship’s crew at the time; that he had not been sent to the mezzanine bunker for coal, and finally that he is a native born Italian and the" Jones Act does not cover his case. The respondent has pleaded a Greek statute, a workmen’s compensation act, and contends that since the S. S. “Emmy” sailed under the Greek flag and was owned by Greeks, libellant is limited to the relief provided by the Greek statute.

I permitted the respondent to make a complete record on this point as to the [61]*61Greek law, although I believe that the question has been passed upon by our own Circuit Court of Appeals in this very case (Gambera v. Bergoty, 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 414, 415), holding that Section 33 of the Jones Act, Sec. 688, title 46 U.S.C.A., covers the libellant’s claim as a seaman. The libel in rem was dismissed but the claim in personam was ordered tried on the merits.

Libellant was born in Genova, Italy, in 1903. He came to this country in 1920, paying a poll tax on his admission at the Port of New York. He has been a seaman most of the time since 1922, although he has also done scaling work aboard ship, as well as stevedoring. For part of the year 1927 he worked in the mines in Pennsylvania and for one year, 1927 to 1928, he was in the United States Army, receiving an honorable discharge therefrom. Libellant’s work aboard ship has been mainly as a coal passer or fireman. He holds a certificate of rating as a wiper from the United States Department of Commerce issued February 6, 1937. In August 1937 he took out his “first papers” of naturalization.

The fact that the vessel was registered in Greece and flew the Greek flag and is owned by Greeks does not relieve respondent owner from liability in an action in personam under the Jones Act on the facts herein described. The facts developed at the trial are the same as those stated in the following quotation from the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals:

“Not only had the libellant been domiciled in the United States for over twenty years, during the greater part of which he had served on American ships, but the voyage began and ended in the United States; it was from Trenton to Philadelphia, Norfolk and New York, and he was injured on the leg between Trenton and Philadelphia. The whole voyage was thus to be performed within our territorial waters except possibly for a part of the leg between Norfolk and New York.”

That Court disposed of the respondents’ contention as follows:

“To hold that men who in every other but this formal sense have since boyhood been members of our own community, and who earn their living side by side with those on behalf of whom the act was indubitably passed; to hold that these are excepted from its protection because they have not become naturalized, would, it seems to us, pretty clearly defeat the overriding purpose of Congress.”

I shall now discuss the merits — the question of respondents’ negligence and any contributory negligence on the part of the libellant. There is no doubt in my mind that libellant had been hired and was actually employed as a fireman aboard the ship at the time of the accident. It appears from the testimony that on December 20th one, Nick Cavallos, acting for the ship, hired a number of men in Philadelphia, about seven to go to Trenton where the S. S. “Emmy” was at dock and to clean the residue of a china clay cargo from the holds of the ship. Cavallos told the libellant that after the cleaning job was finished, he would be one of the firemen; a job for which he was qualified and for which he held a certificate. The group of men left Philadelphia, early on the morning of the 21st and worked all of the morning of the 21st and the 22nd cleaning out the ship. They slept on board both nights. On December 21st the captain took the names of some of the men who were to act as firemen on the trip from Trenton to Philadelphia, Norfolk and New York. Libellant was one of those men.

Early in the morning of December 23rd one of the officers came to the forecastle for two men to act as firemen on the trip from Trenton to Philadelphia. Libellant and a man named Gioelli went down to the fire-room. The engineer told libellant to help get up steam and libellant started to break the fires which had been banked. At that time one of the few regular Greek firemen remaining on the ship came into the fire-room and an argument developed between Gioelli and the Greek, with the result that Gioelli went upstairs on deck and thereafter assisted in handling some of the cables and ropes of the ship. Libellant continued his work in the fireroom.

Between 9 and 10 o’clock the engineer directed libellant to go up in the bunker tween decks and to shovel some coal down through the chute, which emptied into the fireroom. The dynamos on the ship were not in operation. There were no electric lights. Such lighting as there was consisted of some open lamps, without glass globes, the light being furnished by a wick about an inch long. These lamps had hook-shaped handles, arranged so that they could be hung at any convenient place. When libellant was directed to go up to the tween decks bunker and get some coal [62]*62down, he attempted to take a lamp from the fireroom and he was told to leave it where it was, that there was a light in the tween decks bunker. It appears from the testimony that the ship had very little coal aboard. There were only some sweepings and dust in the main bunker, which opened off the floor of the fireroom. In fact the coal supply was so limited that when the ship was four days off the American coast the engineer “Reported to the Captain that he was afraid we did not have enough coal to reach America”. So there are these physical facts to support libellant’s story that he was sent up to the tween decks bunker to wheelbarrow and shovel some coal over to the chute.

Libellant ascended a narrow steel stairway from the fireroom to a cross walk. He then opened a door off the cross walk and looked in the tween decks bunker on the port side. There was no light there, so he did not enter but went over to a door on the starboard side and entered the tween decks bunker on the starboard side. He saw an oil lamp hanging from some part of the wall, at a distance of about 40 feet. The lamp did not light up the space within the mezzanine bunker. Libellant wanted to get the lamp to help him locate a shovel and a wheelbarrow. As he was walking slowly in the direction of the lamp with his left hand extended in front of him at about the height of his head, he fell through an open hatch a distance of 22 feet to the flooring of the main coal bunker and was badly hurt.

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

Related

Wounick v. Pittsburgh Consolidation Coal Co.
208 F. Supp. 67 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1962)
Henry v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
134 F. Supp. 71 (S.D. New York, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 F. Supp. 60, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-emmy-nysd-1944.