The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-10
THE WASCO.
An Injured Passenger Awarded
Damages.
OPINION BY JUDGE HANFoRD.
saith Henan Breach OF Promise Case
on TriaI-More Suits Against Frank :
d. Ray-The BIotter.


Judge Hantord, of the United States court,
Yesterday rendered an interesting opinion in the
eesc OF J. A. Neliquist VS.. the steamer Wasco.
TIE circumstances are fully explained in the
opinion, which is az follows:
Il admiralty, suit In rem. by J. A. Mellquist
seanst the passenger steamer Wasco, to recover
dsrnsges for a personal injury to libelant while
passenger, caused by negligence. Findings
md decree for the 1 belant.
PIP Carroll and J. c. McFadden, for libelant;
z ~ Carr and Harold Preston, for claimants.
HAxFoRD, District Judge.
Tie evidence shows that the kbelant, travel
frs salesman, went on board Of the Wasco at
Few " hascom on the morning OF December 80.
1891 The steamer was then running as q carrier
OF passengers aud freight on the route from Sc
attic TO New whs'com, via Anacortes and inter-
mediate places, and was about to depart on her
rgu ar trip from New Whatcorn, via said inter-
mediate places, TO seattle The libelant's inten-
ton was TO visit Samish, Anacortes and LaCoa-
ner during his trip, and upon going on board In
CURED If he could be landed al Samish and was
Informed that ssmish was OF the steamers
. special arrangement whereby the additional
cost 10 her would be paid. He declined to pay
extra fare, but did not change his purpose OF
taking passage on said trip. Prepayment of
fare or the purchase OF a passage ticket was not
exacted, IL being the custom for the purser to
collect fare from those on board during the
time OF making passages. From these facts i
conclude that the libeiant from the time OF 60
ing on board the steamer was a passenger and
entitled TO hold the steamer responsible for the
due fulfllment of its obligations as a common
carrier OF passengers for hire. The steamer has
stairway leading from the forward part of her
main deck to her cabin deck, and Immediately
after going on board the libcllant was upon
said stairway going either from the main deck
while he was there the steamers masthead
Hight, lantern weighing between niue and ten
pounds. was being hoisted TO its position on the
mast, and by the breaking of the halyard it fell,
striking the nbelaat on the scapuia of his left
shoulder Tie blow caused severe pain and
produced q confused wound. In consequence of
which the hbeiant was for a time disabled from
attending 10 his business and incurred expense
for medical treatment The injury, how
ever, was not dangerous in character nor
permanent. The testimony fails to disclose the
cause of the accident, but it could not have
happened IL the halyard and appliances for
suspending the light had been sound, of suffi-
cent strength and proper construction, and
there had been no negligence on tue part OF the
the performance of their duties in connection
with said light.
carrier of passengers is in law bound to ex-
efcise high degree OF care for the safety OF
travellers. and any failure to provide sound
equipments and appliances OF sufficient strength
and proper construction, or to exercise due care
In the use thereof, Is such negligence will
enlitle passenger who may suffer injury in
jury to passenger on board a passenger ship
happening in consequence OF a negligent fail
IRE on the part OF the owner, officers or mar
liners OF the vessel, is both breach of the con-
tract for transportation and a tort, emitting the
injured passenger to compensation and to a
lien therefor upon the vessel. 1.-The "City of
Panama" i01 U. s., 462.1
8 The question in the case most difficult to de.
eide Is, As to the amount which will be fair
compensation TO the libelaDt He complains of
severe and protracted suffering and pretends
tkat tr,Sxt "a NrI~w
tence in the case to corroborate the Iibelants
testimony is that OF his wife, physicians en-
poyed by him and a few of his friends whose
testimony, however. is in most respects q mere
repetition of his own complainings and state
ments regarding his sufferings and injuries.
With the addition OF their opinions TO the
eenuineness and truth OF the statements which
be has made To them of his suffering and conse-
Quent disability to work since he happening of
tie injury. His attempt has been 10 show to
the court that In consequence OF the injury his
body Is de formed, so that his shoulders are not
OF the same height; that he has lost entirely the
use OF his left arm and hand; that be constantly
suffers severe pain in his lett shoulder and
chest that his lungs are affected, and that he is
% entirely disabled as TO be unable to remove
his coat or change his clothing without assist
ance. In my opinion this attempt Is a failure.
There are many indications that the case has
been overdone and that the libelant il try
ing to magnify q comparatively trifinx
injury, into a serious and permanent disability
for the purpose of unjustly extorting a large
sum as his damages The evidence was taken
six months after the happening OF tho injury.
and If the libelant had during that time been
wholly deprived OF the use OF his arm as he pre-
tends, the fact could be proved by more reliable
evidence than his own statements. The soften
Ing OF the muscles aud wasting OF the arm itself
would. II the facts rs the libelant represents,
give physical and positive evidence of such
facts The physical appearances, as shown by
the testimony of three reputable physicians who
examined the hbelant in the month of july are
a. follows: There is but slight difference in
the measurements of the ,ibelant's two arms
the muscles of the left arm are firm, having no
appearance OF a,rophy; the libelant can raise,
extend and bend his left arm and make all the
movements of which a LETT arm in its normal
condition il ordinarily capable: his right and
LEFT lungs are equally sound and there IL no
Indication OF any localized ailment about his
shoulder, spine or chest, and no apparent cause
or necessity for the dropping position in which
he carries his left shoulder testified TO BY his
witnesses Two of the physicians who exam
ined him testified that in their opinion the
libelent has At times since the injury fegned
pains aud disabilities, In the presence of others.
Tor the mere purpose of manufacturing evil
oence to enhance his damages in this case, and
In that opinion concur. 1t 10 now nearly six
months since the evidence was taken aud n
physical examination of the itbelant at this
time would go far towards confirming or con-
radictng his assertions IN regard TO his inju-
Ties and disabilities made in July. and IL he can
show By submitting TO such examination that
ny opinion Is erroneous ar opportunity Will
Dc Afforded him for SO doing, before | sign the
decree.
As the facts now appear from the evidence
consider that the sum OF $50 will reasonably and
tnneienty compensate the ilbeiant for the
injury actually sustained, and award him that
sum with costs.
On the part OF the claimants evidence was in
toduced 10 prove that the libelsnt caused the
steamer 20 Se arrested Mt the Nhatcom end OF
her route. instead of at Seattle, where her own
ers reside. after business hours Saturday
evening, whereby she wss detained over sun
Cay; that by sait detention she sustained a con-
Siderable loss, suG that in making the arrest at
said time AMI place the process OF the court was
used t. unnecessarily aut yeSatoUsy interfere
wih the business Of The vessel On this ground
II 10 urged that 40 damages should be
awarded - tho libelAnt. This claim / cannot
Allow Ter the reason that there Is no founda-
Non In the pleaiiugs 20 support q cross demand
OF set-Of. Aud ! Will ssy further that the au-
.hofitles seem 10 have settled this 20 be the
rue; Tbs, even with proper pieadlnGs, dam
set Will rot be awarded for injury 10 the
business ot vessel In consequence Of a suit
~ rem without proof az malice or had faith
tHenry's Admiralty, p SS7: The Adolph, Fed.
mmeh, IL, Kemp VS.. Brown. IS Fed. Rep, Sal
lie Alex Gibson. ~ Fed. Rep, ga