Case Name: The Flowergate. Sloan v. The Flowergate
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1887-04-07
Citations: 31 F. 762
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Flowergate. Sloan v. The Flowergate.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 31
Pages: 762–763

Head Matter:
The Flowergate. Sloan v. The Flowergate.
(District Court E. D. New York.
April 7, 1887.)
Ships and Shipping—Liability for Personal Injury.
The use of an eye-bolt, apparently sufficient for the purpose to which it is applied, but in reality insufficient solely because of a latent defect, entails no liability for a personal injury caused by such defect.
Libel for personal injury to a grain-trimmer while engaged in rigging the tackle preparatory to stowing a cargo of grain, occasioned by the breaking of an oyc-bolt, set in the deck, to which a block was attached, and in use for the purpose of moving- the vessel along the dock. After the bolt broke a latent defect was disclosed below where it was countersunk in the deck. ■
James Troy and John J. Allen, for libelant.
F. B. Concers, for claimant.

Opinion:
Benedict, J.
The evidence is not sufficient to justify finding as a fact that the condition of the oy e-bolt, when it was put to use at the time the plaintiff was injured through its giving way, was such as to inform anyone of the fact that the bolt was already partly broken off. The eye ivas connter-sunk in the dock, and the old break was below the upper surface of the deck. This location rendered the defect in truth latent. The use of an eye-bolt, apparently sufficient, but in reality insufficient solely because of a latent delect, entails no liability for damages caused by such defect.
The libel must be dismissed, with costs.