The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-01-18

OIL
any that he ought have taken that he did not take
do you know of any precauon that he ought TO have aken
that will put this way: Do you know of any Pecaution
that ordinarily prudent and careful captain would have taken
that he did not take in approaching the and!
It urged that this question fatally defective III ITS state
hypothesis that there unusually mild surf that
night that it could be heard in time TO prevent
the from going the land There was evidence
tending show such condition of the surf 1t Is true as
argued that if the had been going at slow rate
and without sail could whether the SURF @t no.
been heard But the question contained statement OF
the which the going and that she under
steam and sail and regard the surf made
with the regard to the rate OF speed
propulsion of the and whether the rate
speed method of propulsion proper under the CIR
involved in the question is urged secondly
that the question defective IN not stating the danger OF
approaching Upolo point due variable Winds shifting currents
and the difficulty in making the owying land in front of
higher land the difficulty in making low lying land
higher land and with reference this particular point
of land with which he familiar, the witness had just been
examined and therefore the the hypothetical
that the approaching this point all that
As winds and currents not only was the witness
familiar with these, but the contention OF the counsel who
put the question that the danger from these
this point than other point and there was evidence to
sustain such contention 1t is further urged that it is objection
able ask whether person negligent whether he omitted
ANYTHING that OUGHT TO have been done To have asked
Captain himself whether he negligent any respect
have asked witness who present at the disaster whether the
Captain negligent respect to have asked an expert
whether all the evidence the the Captain was III his
opinion Negligent might have been improper but TO ask an
expert his opinion proper upon hypothetical case
stating what there evidence support and substantially all
that counsel relies upon proper No doubt the questions
consideration mg have been improved in form But the
trial Judge apparently kept the correct principles IN mind and
something be left his discretion, and from the entire
testimony that the plaintiff pre-
udced by the form of the questions objected to III this
In Transportation Line Hope, % T. 5 29 which was an
the loss of barge and her cargo while being towed
by defendant through Long Island Sound expert was asked
with your experience would it be safe prudent for tug
Chesapeake Bay other wide to tug three
boats abreast, with high windE The Supreme Court of the
United States held the question proper.
In MON Insurance Co. Smith, 124 I. S. 405, the shaft
tug having broken in Lake Huron the issue whether her
exercised proper in having her owed to Cleveland
her home port Lake Erie III which she sank instead OF nav
ing her repaired Port Huron Detroit The court held 1t
proper experts whether under the circumstances
good seamansp and prudent bring the tug through to
Cleveland
In Propeller Niagara Co,des, q How the propeller
put Presque Isle night, in Lake Huron, for
SHELTER there stranded Experts allowed to testify
whether under the circumstances 1t was good eaasp TO
put harbor and whether after the vessel inside the
took such precautionary steps amounted to ordinary
prudence
In Hill T. SturQoi IS Mo- 1913 an action for the value
goods shipped and barge towed by the
while running up the Mississippi river night heered against
bank in the side of the barge and her to
sink 1t held competent to ask expert whether 1t was
proper suffer the person the helm, teersman,
pilot the boat at the time and place of the accident
Ia Hdyodrd Knapp % Mimi $780, experts allowed
testify whether the place where brazil OF logs was
moored safe place.
These cases show how far many gone
ting expert testimony nautical Some OF them
further than the trial this No doubt
best has often been said extend the which
expert be admitted the classes of questions
that be put expert witnesses Much must depend the
of each In the present instance the plaintiffs
general that the defendant could well avoid
putting rather general questions to expert witnesses
An exception taken the refusal of the trial Judge
instruct the jury requested by the plaintiff that 1T is against
public policy permit carrier to spulate for eNem
from the effects of the negligence of himself his
and therefore the loss in this occsoned by the
negligence of the defendant its servants, the plaintiff
titled of the defendant the full value of goods and
interest from date of demand"
The tried mainly the theory that the negligence
any the part of the Captain First Officer but there
question raised whether the Company itself
negligent in having sufficient supply of coal board
enable its avoid by steamn against head
winds and in having sufficient number of vessels
to do the business and take the requisite time slow down
when approaching &c. and the main support
of this instruction that it the of negligence
the part of the defendant itself well the part
Bit. ahnunL the defendant did do he