West India & P. S. S. Co. v. Weibel

Fifth Circuit

West India & P. S. S. Co. v. Weibel

113 F. 169, 51 C.C.A. 116, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 3940

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 7, 1902

DocketNo. 1,070

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 113 F. 169 (West India & P. S. S. Co. v. Weibel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

West India & P. S. S. Co. v. Weibel, 113 F. 169, 51 C.C.A. 116, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 3940 (5th Cir. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only error insisted upon in this court, is in admitting evidence over objections in support of the facts alleged in the petition. The question, as presented, is ihe same as if, in the court below, the defendant had filed an exception of no cause of action. The petition shows that, having business aboard the defendant steamship, the petitioner was there injured by falling through a hatch, in a dark place, which haich the owners had negligently left-open, without giving sufficient notice thereof, and charges that the owners had neglected their duty to provide a safe, place for petitioner to work in said ship, and had not taken reasonable and necessary precautions for safety. It is well settled that the owners of a ship are liable for injuries to persons not notified nor warned, and who are lawfully aboard the ship, when such injuries are caused by, or directly result through, negligence in the construction of the ship, the lack of safe appliances, or from the failure to take reasonable precautions for the safety of such persons, and we are clear that the petition in this case avers facts which show prima facte that Ihe defendant was liable for the injuries suffered by the petitioner. The case is argued as though the petition showed the case of a ship fully turned over to a contracting stevedore for the purpose of loading or preparing, with notice of defects in dangerous places, iu which case it has been held that the owners are not liable to the eruployés of the contractor for damages arising from the open condition of hatches or other defects. For the declaration of the rule, see The Auchenardeu (D. C.) 100 Fed. 895. That, however, is not the case here, but rather such a case as this court found in Burrell v. Fleming (decided at the last term) 47 C. C. A. 598, 109 Fed. 489, where the owners were held liable for injuries to a stevedore’s em[172]*172ployé falling through an uncovered hatch, because sufficient notice of the ship’s condition was not given. The ruling complained of was correct.- The record shows a case in which interest should be allowed from the date of the verdict.

The judgment of the circuit court is amended so as to allow legal interest from rendition of the verdict, and as so amended is affirmed. All costs to be paid by the plaintiff in error.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only error insisted upon in this court, is in admitting evidence over objections in support of the facts alleged in the petition. The question, as presented, is ihe same as if, in the court below, the defendant had filed an exception of no cause of action. The petition shows that, having business aboard the defendant steamship, the petitioner was there injured by falling through a hatch, in a dark place, which haich the owners had negligently left-open, without giving sufficient notice thereof, and charges that the owners had neglected their duty to provide a safe, place for petitioner to work in said ship, and had not taken reasonable and necessary precautions for safety. It is well settled that the owners of a ship are liable for injuries to persons not notified nor warned, and who are lawfully aboard the ship, when such injuries are caused by, or directly result through, negligence in the construction of the ship, the lack of safe appliances, or from the failure to take reasonable precautions for the safety of such persons, and we are clear that the petition in this case avers facts which show prima facte that Ihe defendant was liable for the injuries suffered by the petitioner. The case is argued as though the petition showed the case of a ship fully turned over to a contracting stevedore for the purpose of loading or preparing, with notice of defects in dangerous places, iu which case it has been held that the owners are not liable to the eruployés of the contractor for damages arising from the open condition of hatches or other defects. For the declaration of the rule, see The Auchenardeu (D. C.) 100 Fed. 895. That, however, is not the case here, but rather such a case as this court found in Burrell v. Fleming (decided at the last term) 47 C. C. A. 598, 109 Fed. 489, where the owners were held liable for injuries to a stevedore’s em[172]*172ployé falling through an uncovered hatch, because sufficient notice of the ship’s condition was not given. The ruling complained of was correct.- The record shows a case in which interest should be allowed from the date of the verdict.

The judgment of the circuit court is amended so as to allow legal interest from rendition of the verdict, and as so amended is affirmed. All costs to be paid by the plaintiff in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 F. 169, 51 C.C.A. 116, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 3940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-india-p-s-s-co-v-weibel-ca5-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack