Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-06-13
Schroeder, V. Brown & McCabe, Multi
nOmah County.

R. P. Schroeder, respondent, V.
Brown & McCabe, a corporation, ap-
pellant. Appeal from the circuit
court for Multnomah county. Hon.
w. N. Gatens, judge. Argued and
submitted May "a, 1911. R. r. Gilt
ner, (Giltner e Sewell, on brief) for
respondent. w. E. Farrell (Wilbur
& Spencer, A. NJ. Dibble, on brief
for appellant Mcbride, ]. Affirmed.
This is an action to recover dam
ages for injuries sustained by plain
tiff on March 29, 1909, while in de-
fendant's employ.
Plaintiff, a longshoreman, was en-
gagged with other co-employees of de-
fendant in loading the steamship
Corydon with lumber from the dock,
alongside of which it was moored. A
boom was attached to the mast of
the steamer, and a wire cable, run
ming parallel with the boom, passed
through block or pulley at the end
of the boom. A detachable sling was
used to place around a certain
amount of lumber and when the
lumber was in shape to be moved,
the engineer operating a winch,
hoisted it from the deck. The boom
was steadied or held, while the load
was being lifted, by guy ropes, known
as the inshore and off-shore guy
ropes. Plaintiffs duties consisted in
working on the dock, placing lumber
in the sling to be hoisted He and
co-laborer, after arranging a load
to being hoisted, were
steadying it to the edge of the dock
and the strain caused the offshore
guy rope to break, This allowed the
boom to swing toward plaintiff and
the load of lumber which was being
moved along the dock fell against
him. The guy ropes may be reeved
slngly or doubly. A part of the
hatchman's duty is to swing the
boom around to the man on the dock.
1t is more difficult and consumes
more time when the guy ropes are
reeved doubly. There is some dis
pute as to whether the line was
reeVed from double to single during
the progress of the work or immedl-
ately before the men commenced
work, at the time of plaintiffs acci-
dent. The offshore guy rope was old
and rotten and when reeved singly
was incapable of standing the ordi-
nary strain put upon it in the course
of the work
The evidence tends to show that
Anderson was in immediate charge of
the work with authority to hire and
discharge workmen and that he hired
plaintiff and his co-employee on the
dock the day before the accident.
Plaintiff had Judgment in the court
below and defendant appeals
Mcbride, j.: The evidence shows
that plaintiff was at work on the
dock and that the offshore guy rope
broke at a place which must have
been at least 80 feet distant from
where he was at work. When the
boom was swung over the dock, for
the purpose of having attached to it
the load which it was plaintiffs duty
to make up and prepare for hoisting
aboard the vessel, that portion of the
oHshore guy rope, which was at
tached to the boom, would necessar-
lily be within a few feet of plaintiff,
but not in a position to attract his
attention. 1t was no part of his duty
to inspect this rope as it was not a
thing which he was required to han
die or have anything to do with in
the course of his work. 1t was one
of the appliances which it was the
business and duty of the master to
furnish to enable the boom to be
properly handled in the course of
swinging the lumber from the dock
to the hatch, and it was the duty of
defendant to furnish one that was
reasonably safe for that purpose, and
plaintiff, a laborer on the dock. was
not obliged to make an inspection of
the rigging of the boom to determine
its soundness, He had right to re-