The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-12-09 00:00:00

A CASE OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

In the Court of Queen's Itellol, the cause of '• iddie v.
31iver,' has been tried, alai was a case of very considerable
public Interest. It was an action agailllt the proprietor
of the Cunard line of steamers for all Injury sustained by the
plaintiff MI board "Ile of those stsaiwers.--We give the LAIIC
as reported In The Tintds

The circumstances of the case were these. Accord-
ing to the account of the plaintiff he took his passage,
with hid wife, at New York on board the Palmyra,
one of the Cunard line of steamers. While on
board lie went down to dinner iii the midd e of the
day. The fore hatchway was then, he said, closed.
After dinner he and his wife came upon deck again and
went to the "companion ladder." He went to get her
a rug, and was In the act of witting a rug over her as
she sat against the forecastle door, when the vessel gave
a andilen lurch and he fell backwards down the hatchway,
which was open. He fell into the forehold, striking his
head against a beam as he fell, and injured his right arm
at the shoulder. This was about 2 o'clock, of course
broad daylight, but he said he had not noticed that
the boll had been opened, nor had any one told him sik
He said he felt no pain, and said nothing as to any
injury. The surgeon einunined }Miami,' felt his shoulder.
He expressed no opinion, but ordered the cabin boy
to fetch two mattresses and some clean sheets. The
plaintiff was then, he said, taken down into the steer-
age and laid on his back on the two mattresses. The
surgeon ordered two or three of the steerage stewards
to come to his assistance. The two sheets were
joined together and placed round his left arm The
chief steward was at the plaintiff's head ; the doctor
then seated himself awl placed the ball of his fis
under the plaintiff's left arm, his two banjo
grasped round his wrist. The surgeon then ordered
the men to pull the left arm, The steward,. the
plaintiff swore, said, " You are pulling the wrong
arm," but the plaintiff could not explain how the
steward knew which was the arm injured. However,
he Faid the surgeon then said it was the right arm, and
ordered the nee,-ssary change. Then the plaintiff said
the men pulled five times at the right arm, causing him
intense pain. The surgeon, in fact, dealt AVAIL it as a
case of dislocation, whereat) it was suggested it WM a
case of fracture. The plaintiff was then laid down, and
directed to be kept quiet, but lie was in such pant he
hardlyknew what passed. A great swelling came tingle
top of his shoulder. Next day the sur-esin asked him if
he would allow him to attempt the same operation
again, but the plaintiff said he could not, as he was in
• such great pain, mdess he was put under chloroform,
• which the surgeon declined to ad mini ster, as no other me-
dical loan was in the vessel. The plaintiff kept his bed
' until the vessel arrived at Queenstown, suffering severe
Ipain. us came to London, and went to the Charing-
cross Ito:pita, where he was a jiatient for two months.
From that time to the present the plaintiff said he hail
I not Lad the full use of his arm, awl could only raise it
up half-way. In cross-examination, however, it WM
elicited that, as already intimated, it was brims' day-
light at the time he fell, and, being pieced in cro,s-
examination whether three per, us had nut warned
him that the hatchway was open, he said he did not
recollect. In croiseexaminatien he said he "dirt
hear them." His wife was called to confirm his evi-
deLee. It isto Ilene that. the I ItintX', cause
of action WAS founded On two beads of complaint
first the original injury, awl then the alle;:eil maltreat-
ment. From the ruedieal evidence it appeared that there
was both a fracture and a dislocation, ani I that trial Filch
• fall a fracture was to be expected. The fracture WAS in
the bone id the upper part of the shoulder, the IL-loca-
tion Was in the joint of the shoulder. This, of course,complicated the case, and while it rendered the injury
greater, it rendered, also, the treatment more difficult,
and likewise required a treatment entirely different
from that which would sufficient for simple
. .

dislocation. By the application If ordinary skill a
fracture could have been discovered, and, assuming
a fracture, the force applied in this 'instance would
have been of no usv at all, while it would have oc-
casioned great pain to the patient. It would be no
good either to fracture or dial. cation, and the reduction
of the dislocation ought to have been postponed till
the bone fractured WaB reunited. Theeffect of the injury
had been to cause great suffering and permanenlly to
impair the use of the arm. But, on the: other hand, the
plaintia's medical evidence showed that, ei vie hod
there not been the impngwr treatment, the ultimate
result would have been substantially the same. Still,
if there had been proper treatment at first there would
have leenofair chance of reduction of the dislocation,
the reduction of which was greatly obstructed by the
us of time which occured. On the whole, the effect td
the mirdical evidence seemed to be that, beyond the
useless intlfction of pain and the postponement of the
reduction of the dislocation and its consequent incom-
ph tenses, there was no injury inflicted by the alleged
maltreatment.
At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff 111 r. Milward
objected, on behalf of the defe.lunt, that there Was no case.
Fist, there Was no absolute tunicrttatth, to carry passengefl
safely and to protect them from all accidelite._ _

- - . -
The pord Chief Jurtiee : There is, surely, an implied under-
taking to use reasonable care, and it will be a question for
the jury whether leaving hatchways open while there is a
ruling sea was or was not reasmiable care.
Mr. Milwardi submitted that as to the second cause of
complaint, the allt god maltreatmegt I.y the surgeon, this was
not an action against lain, but against the prorrietor., On a
supposed contra -t to provide medical and sin gical shill,
whereas there was no evidence of such g contract.

The Lord Chief Justice said there certainly was not.
Mr. linddleston (for the plaintiff), then proposed to put in
an advertisement issued by the moprietors of the Collard
. .

line as to their steamers fr.r; NtwGrk to Boston, or from

Liverpool to New Ork, which cuntioned announcements as
to surgeons being taken on board, hut unfortunately the
plaintiff had not got the advertisvinent of the voyage front
New York to England.

Mr. Mlbran, thereupon ohjected to the adulh...ibillty of
any other ailvertiseninuta

It was then elicited from the plaintiff that he had seen
placards of the company on the walls at New York announc-
ing their terms of conveyance, and that he read in them
these words Au experienced surgeon is attached to each
vessel.- Ile swore positively that there were NVordi to that
effect in the New York placard as to the voyage to England.
The Lord thief Justice observed that most ocean-going
vesseLs were advertised with similar announeementfi—vessels
to India or America, for instance—awl no one can doubt
that it Is a very great inducement to passengers to go by such
vessels : and mat was clear there were such announcements
in the advertisements of the voyage oat, there is every pro-
bability that there were ginner announcements as to the
voyage home. Assuming that there was such an announce-
ment, then there clearly mull is an undertaking that there
should he a surgeon of competent earn and skill, lie, there-
hum, should leave to the jury these three questions—l. Was
there negligence on board the vessel which caused the sea-
dent and injury? 2. Was there reasonable surgical care and
skill? 3. Was there any injury resulting from the want of
such care and skill.

The cote for the defence, as opened by Mr. SI ilward, Was,
in a word, that there had heen no want of reasonable care
In any respeet, and that the ace'dent was ex Mg to the
plaintiff's own negligence. It was not to be expected, he
urged, that the company should insure their passengers
againd the pmsibility of aceident —to which the Lord lade(
Jfelice assented - and all that the passengers had a right to
expect wear, alienable accommodation and reasonable care.
Iti support of this defence the mit All of the Palmyra was
called, and etated that An the day in question the weather
was fine, the whet light, anti the sea smooth. The vessel,
he said, only rolled slightly, from one to two degrees on
each nide of the perpendicular. As the day advanced the
rolling rather decreased. It was .mite common on these
voyages to take up the hatch.ways at least once a passage.
though it was rat an every-day matter. They w:re opened
to get at the baggage. Thongh he did not actually see
the accident. he was on deck at the time when it happened,
and said there was no such rolling as could throw a
person off his legs. Ile saw the plaintiff daily, and
, heard no complaint of the doctor. In cross-examination
lie said he made no entry In the log about the nether,
lie won asked as to a ' Protest by the Steerage Pas-
sengers," and said he had never seen or heard if It
before the purser was called, and stated that just be-
fore the accident he had just come up the hatchway him-
self, and law the plaintiff with others standing near with la
paper in his hand and he told theni to be careful or some
of them would go down there—that is, down the hatchway.
He had no &WIC that they all heard Ida.. There was a
distance of 13ft. on each side of the hatchway, botween the
hatehway and the sides if the vessel, and the hatchway was
Aft. broad. Every one could see it, and no one, the wit.
lives said, with the smallest care could fail to avoid It. Thu
" combings " were them.' height and thickness. Ilundreds
of paasengers were taken in oue of these voyages, and appa-
rently no accident had banpened to his knowledge lot this.
The hatchway was similar to the hatchways on board all
the other ocean steamers. After the accident he saw the
plaintiff who made no complaint, and he had never set n or
heard of the "protest " now produced. The boatswain
swore that at the time of the accident he VIM down in the
hold with nine men moving the cargo, one man being left
above to warn passengers to keep off the hatchway.
This witness swore that he himself personally warned the
plaintiff several times to stand further off the hatchway.
Just before the plaintiff fell he seat li,:•7nting a pipe, and then
began to niece his feet, dancing about, and then suddeaty
fell backwards on the barrels beneath, his feet apparently
catching each other, and the toe of Itoe ft catching the
heel of the t Aber. The pipe fell out of tuba hand aa he fell,
and the sparks of the tobacco tell 1110.11 the barrels. For an
hour RIO a quarter the witness nabl he was cautioning the
plaintiff, who therefore was on deck the whole of that period
with his wife (their evidence being that they had been down
to dinner and had just come up from dinner). Ile was mire
the passengers' dinner was ever when he took the hatchway
up, which was just after twelve o'clock. There wam no rolling .
to speak of. The man who was left upon deck to warn Pas-
sengers was called, slid swore that he saw the plaintiff stand- ,
Mg near the hatch c ay with a lighted pipe, mid earned him not
to stand 80 near. After the plaintiff haa lighted hit pipe
the witness said he began to skip—the ship gave a very !
slight roll—skipping backwards, when be fell backwards into
the hold. The heel of one foot caught the combing and
caused him to fall.

The lord Chief Justice put it to the witness emphatically
--Can you swear positively that the plaintiff just before he
fell was skipping stunt with alighted pipe In his hand I
The witness swore positively that it was so, adding, how-
ever. the ship caus,il him to step backwards, but he swore be
was skipping.
The Lord thief Justice If that is loelieved of course there
Is an end to the plaintiffs case.
Mr. lluddleston : Certainly : but we cannot admit It t, be
fact, and as neither my client nor his wife was ever asked a
word alemt it, I shall ask to recall them to contradict lb.
Several other witnesses were called, who supported the
same story.

The Loin chief Juitiee ohierved, in the eoune of the

evidence, that ho doubted very ipuch whether—asauming
what now appeared—that the hat cc were opened for the I
ordinary business of the ship then going on, and not left
Open In more carelessness, the action Collid be maintained.
In making this remark he assumed that the hatches were
opened in the buainess of the chip, uf which there ahneared
no doubt.
Mr. 11 inldleston admitted that there was not; but still
urged that there ought to be reasonable care to warn the
has.eligers or protcA them from falling.
The Lord Chief Justice observed that it was practically
very difficult to fence or protect the hatchway when open
Mr. litiddlestono urged that the passengers situuld be
warned, :old denied the ease for the defence.
Siveral other witnesses were called in support of the de-
fence, when at last

The forcinan of the jury, after cause:lin-7 his hrethren,
said they we, all ,1 opinion that It was inine,ssary to
hear any fiirther evikhnfm in support of the defence, as
their minds were made up 4111.01.4 it.
Mr. II midleston said upon that it was in vain, of course
to attempt to struggle against their opinion.
The Lord Chief Justice said he quite concurred in that
view; the body of evidence for the defence was too power-
ful to be restated.
Mr. Milward said the proprietors of this line line of
steamers defended the action to 'vindicate the reputatiorr
and character of their line. They were satisfied with the
result, and he was desired to say that they were sincerely
sorry for the accident, and it was a pity the plaintiff had
brought this action. They did not clefs to add to the
plaintiff's misfortnne by pressing for costs, whia, there-
fore, they relinquished.

The verdict was thereupon taken for the defendant.