The morning call., 1891-02-03
IMPORTANT DECISION,
Ship-Owners Liable for Damages
When Captains Are Brutal.

The New York Tribune of January 2Sth
contained an important decision to ship
owners that was decided by Judge Freeman
of the Superior Court of that city the day
before. He said it was the first of its kind
which was tried in that State. The question
decided was the liability of the owners of
sea-going vessels for acts of brutality COM
mitted by the captain. In 1888 the plaintiff,
Charles G. Gabrielson, was sailor on the
bark Rebecca Carnana, bound from Havana,
Cuba, to New York City. He was ordered
TO turn out one morning by Captain James
Dougherty. The sailor said he was not fit
for duty but the captain beat him so badly
as to break his leg III two places and he was
kept in the hospital for six months He
then sGed Frederick Waydell and others,
owners of the bark, Tor damages. After
bearing the plaintiff and his witnesses the
defendants counsel moved To dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the owners of
the vessel could n OF be held liable for an as
Sault committed on member OF the crew
by the captain.
Judge Freeman said the question was en-
tirely new and reserved his decision for sew
eral days. lie finally denied the motion and
SAID, among other things The main
question in this case is whether the owners
of vessel eau be held liable in damages for
an assault committed by a captain on the
high seas upon member of the crew. 1t is
claimed, In the first place, that such an act
Is the act of a feilow-SerVant, for which the
employer is not liable. In this / cannot con-
cur The captain of a ship during a voyage
Is In full control OF the ship. He is the S'-
preme commander, and from the necessity
of the case everything necessary to the pres
ervatlOn OF the ship and the successful pros
ecution OF the voyage is left to his discretion.
1t is his duty to preserve and enforce dis
clpilne among the crew, and If the emergency
calls for it he may intict punishment and
even order man to be put in irons. He is,
therefore, from the very necessities of the
case, the full representative OF the owners,
the alter ego, ana not mere fellow-servant.
" In the second place, il is claimed that
the assault in this case which resulted in
the fracture OF plaintiffs leg. was a wanton,
willtul aud malicious act, and that therefore
the defendants are not liable. Ever
since the decision of Mott against The Con-
sumers' Ice Company it has been the settled
law of this State that for the wantOn and
wllliul acts OF servant done within the gen.
erai scope of his employment while engaged
IN ms masters business, ana with view 10
the furtherancc of that business aud the
masters interests the latter is just as much
responsible as for acts negligently done.
The rule being as stated, | cannot
see why an exception should be made in
favor Of the managing owner OF a vessel,
as against the Willlul and wanton acts OF the
captain, done within the general course and
scope of his employment as such. The eX-
ceptiOn cannot be made upon principle, and
l can find nothing in the maritime law or
the law OF shipping or any statute which
calls for it,
The jury returned a verdict for the plain
IN, WITH damages fixed at $500.
\ peculiar feature of THIS case is that the
same captain and vessel sailed in Arril,
1890, and nothing has since been heard of
them.