The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-07-13

the libel E. A. Douthitt and E. c.
Peters represented the libelant, and
Smith & Lewis the libelee. The. case
will now have to be tried on its merits.
| A clear and succinct exposition of
some of the liabilities of ships for the
proper treatment of their crews is Civ
en- in the courts opinion. AS laid down
in the syllabus the following is the law
Of the case::
In libel for damages by a sailor
for injuries received at sea through
the fault of the ship, it is not irrelev-
ant to allege the wages and perqui-
ately before the voyage in question,
even though he also alleged the wages
he was receiving at the time he was
injured
"a seaman assumes no risks that
may arise from or that are inherent
in a defective equipment of the vessel
upon which he ships.
In case of an accident at sea where
receives serious injuries that require
immediate medical aid, it is the duty
of the master, whether requested to do
SO or not by the injured man, to devil
ate from his voyage for the nearest
port where such aid may be obtained,
if there is such port substantially
nearer in point of time than the port
for which he has cleared
&c he S+n IF he oac
as related by the court, together with
the reasoning upon the facts:
THE libelant brings a libel in rem
against the barkentine Fullerton, the
libelee, and complains that while he's
was holding the position of first mate
of such vessel, at a time when she was
being tOwed from Port Hartford, Cali 4
fornia, to the port of Kihei, in the
Hawaiian Islands. and using her
anchor chain in such towing operation.
he was, through the fault of the libeIee
in providing an anchor chain which
did not fit the windIass and it's ap-
pliances and therefore was dangerous
to those using it, seriously injured in
his right arm when about 500 miles
from Port Hartford on the way to XII
hei, and that the master of the Full
for medical treatment for
libelant, continued on his voyage to:the.
Hawaiian Islands, a distance of over
1900 miles, in consequence of whichia |
for want of immediate medical care
his injured arm became in such a con-
dition that upon his arrival at Kihei |
it was necessary, in order to save his
life, to amputate his arm above the
elbow; thus charging his injury. to the
negligence of the libelee in providing
unsafe machinery and appliances for
the use of the crew of the Fullerton in
the performance of their duties, and
because of the failure of the Fullerton
to return to Port Hartford Immediately
after such injury.
THE libelee has excepted to the libel,
first, because in the first article the
libelant alleges that his wages for a !
long time prior to the date of the acct
dent referred to were 800 a month, |
and board and lodging amounting to
$50 a month, Directing on the ground !
that such matter is irrelevant and inn |
it being alleged elsewhere in
said libel that libelant was in receipt |
Of wages of $50 a month,
This ground of eXcepti2a is over
ruled. Although the allegation is not
Of great Importance, yet it is relevarl,
as showing what wages the libelart |
had been accustomed tn receive ann
was capable of earning previous to Iee
in which he received his>
injuries.
The second ground Of exception is
that the libel does not state facts suf-
icient to constitute a. cause of ACTION |
N that it appears from the allegations
Of the libel that the injuries alleged to i
have been received by the litselant |
were assumed by lfhelant as part of |
the risks assumed by him in his en-
ploymeut. This ground of exception is
1verrujed, the libel having alleged that |
the equipment of the vessel was such |
that ahe links of che anchor chain not |
being the right SIZE to fit the windlass /
and its appliances, made it dangerous
for those using IL. A ship is required |
to provide the crew with safe equip
ment and appliances with which z0,t
perform their duties.
The third ground of exception is.
that the libsl is indefiniae, uncertain,
and insufficient in this chat
It does not appear in said libel, neEther
can it be ascertained how or in what |
manner alter the happening of the ac-
cident as. alleged in sand libel the mas
ter of the said barkentine FtcllertOn
and violated his daty and |
to libelant by not putting |
back and returning to Port Hartford |
or hos or in what manner said bark
entine Fullerton was to make said Port |
or how or in what manner |
said duty was violated by proceeding |
to the port of Sihei under tow of the |
steamer Lansing. or that the said |
barkentine Fullerton would have been |
towed back to said Port Hartford by !
said steamer Lansing.
This ground of exception is over |
ruled. The libel states sufficient to |
show that it charges the master of the |
Fullerton with failure to perform his |
duty to iibelant after having received !
his injuries, in not Immediately re- |
turning TO a near port where his in |
juries might have been attended to |
without the serious damage which re- |
suited from the long delay caused hv |
his proceeding on the voyage. This is !
a duty which arises upon the happen- |
ing of an accident like the one alleged |
and it requires no request from the In |
jured person in order to make ii a !
duty of the ship. The shin owes II |