Case Name: GOODE v. OCEANIC STEAM NAV. CO., Limited
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1918-04-10
Citations: 251 F. 556
Docket Number: No. 183
Parties: GOODE v. OCEANIC STEAM NAV. CO., Limited.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 251
Pages: 556–559

Head Matter:
GOODE v. OCEANIC STEAM NAV. CO., Limited.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
April 10, 1918.)
No. 183.
1. Appeal and Error @=>1008(1) — Review—Findings.
A finding of the trial court as to the size and age of a seaman, who testified at the hearing on a libpl in personam for personal injuries, will ho deferred to on appeal.
2. Shipping @=>166(1) — Passengers—Negligence.
Where a woman passenger fell in stepping from the platform of a ship's eompanionway into a lifeboat, though both the ship and boat were practically motionless, held, that failure to place a seaman in the boat, or to provide the platform with devices to be grasped, was not negligence; nor was it negligence for a' seaman, who steadied the passenger when she began the step, to let go before she placed her foot on the thwart of the lifeboat.
3. Shipping @=>166(1) — Passengers—Care.
If a woman passenger, whose appearance did not indicate that she was unable to control her balance as a normal person, desired extra assistance in stepping from a eompanionway of a ship into a lifeboat, the ship and boat being practically motionless, she should request additional assistance.
Rogers, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Libel by Mabel E. Goode against the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited. From a decree for respondent, libelant appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Southern District oi New York (Hotigh, C. J., presiding), dismissing a libel in personam. The libel was filed November 6, 1916, to recover for personal injuries suffered on hoard the respondent’s ship Laurentic on January 13, 1913, while in the harbor of Havana. The libelant was a passenger on board the Laurentic on a pleasure trip in the West Indies. The vessel had stopped in the harbor of Havana, and the passengers were offered an opportunity to make what was known as the New Castle trip, going ashore in lifeboats towed by a launch. A eompanionway was put over the starboard side of the Laurentic running aft, at the base of which was a platform some 2% or 3 feet square, on each side of which there was a rope, except at an open side leading to the lifeboat. The lifeboat was held by one man on either end close up to the side of the platform. Some question is made whether the gunwale, 3 or 4 inches wide, was on a level with the platform or a few inches higher. The passengers stepped from the platform onto the seat or thwart of the lifeboat, which was 12 or 15 inches wide and about 6 inches below the level of the gunwale. At the bottom of the boat there were thwartship ribs.
Before the plaintiff, who was in the company of her husband, came down the eompanionway, about 25 people had already seated themselves in the boat, which was stiff; there being little or no motion in the harbor on that day. Havana is a nearly land-locked harbor, with, a rise and fall of the tide of less than one foot. On either side of the platform stood two seamen of the ship, whose ag'e and size is in some dispute. As the libelant, who came down the eompanionway, turned to her left and was about to step from the platform into the lifeboat, the seaman on her right took her under the arm to assist her in her step. She lifted up her foot and was about to step down when the seaman, supposing that she was already in safety, withdrew his hand and she lost her balance. Her foot slipped upon the thwart- and she fell into the bottom of the boat, a distance of some inches, spraining her ankle upon one of the ribs, and cansing the injuries in question. The platform itself was supported from the ship by a chain and bridle to support either side. There were iron uprights or sianohions 3% to 4 feet high on either end, within reach of the libelant as she took the stop. At the time she was a woman in good health, 40 years old, and weighing about 170 pounds.
<§ — >For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
The charges of fault are in failing to provide upon the platform a rope or other contrivance by which the libelant could assist herself in stepping into the lifeboat, in not providing a man in the lifeboat, and in stationing a person of insnlicient strength to help her down, who carelessly let go his hold of her when she was in the act of stepping.
Abbott & Coyne, of New York City (B. B„ Coyne, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Burlingham, Montgomery & Beecher, of New York City (Morton L. Eearey, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before WARD and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and LEARNED HAND, District Judge.

Opinion:
LEARNED HAND, District Judge
(alter stating the facts as above). We see no possible ground for negligence in this case, unless it be the act of Reilly, the seaman who helped the libelant into the boat. There was certainly no reason to have a seaman in the boat itself. The passengers were none of them decrepit or infirm; the step was an easy one, at most only 6 inches deep; the lifeboat had no motion, or substantially none; the libelant was a woman in the prime of life and vigor, apparently in no need of assistance. We cannot see that such a situation required more than the two men who were to help the passengers into the lifeboat. The situation is quite different from that of a boat in motion alongside a steamer.
We accept the opinion of the District Judge that the person who helped the libelant in was Reilly, a seaman 30 years old, weighing about 170 pounds. He saw Reilly and the libelant, and his judgment is better than ours as to which is correct as to the identity of this seaman, and -whether lie was a young boy 16 years old or not. It is true that the District Judge tried the case in part upon depositions, but we cannot agree with the libelant's position 1hat for that reason the finding' as to those witnesses whom he did see was not better than ours can be, who have only the written depositions as to all.
It is substantially conceded that the cause of the libelant's misstep was Reilly's failure to keep hold of her until her foot had actually reached the thwart, or until she had become firmly planted. But this does not seem to us sufficient evidence of negligence. The case turns precisely upon the question whether Reilly should have apprehended that the libelant would rely upon his support for so long' as she in fact did. It seems to us in common experience that, in steadying a woman who is making a step under these circumstances, one does not ordinarily keep the support until her foot actually reaches the lower step, particularly where the step, as here, was only 6 inches, no more than, if as much as, the ordinary riser of a staircase. The purpose is to insure the balance of the person assisted until the weight of the body has begun to leave the leg which remains on the higher step and has begun to fall, so as to be caught by the lower foot. Only in the case of decrepit persons, whose balance in landing is doubtful, do we think it necessary that the support should be kept until the foot has been steadied upon the lower step. We agree with the 'District Court that Reilly took the usual course with persons who are apparently strong and able to take care of themselves. There is no suggestion in the record that the libelant in appearance was unwieldy or incapable of managing her weight. It is trae this was considerably above the average, but that did not indicate that she could not control her balance as normal people ordinarily do. We think that, if her control was not that of the ordinary person, it was incumbent upon her to ask for 'the extra assistance, which was not otherwise indicated.
Finding no negligence, the decree will be affirmed, with costs.