Court Opinion

ID: 9442601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:52:40.297104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:08.945738
License: Public Domain

BIGGS, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
The record does not support the majority decision that the Ohio Barge Line, Inc. was not guilty of negligence. The conclusion of the court below that Ohio Barge Line, Inc. was guilty of negligence was correct.
Captain Hibstenberg, the captain of the S.S. “City of Pittsburgh”, was in the Marine Hospital at Pittsburgh at the same time as was Engel and saw him there. Engel’s condition was a serious one, though he was an ambulatory patient. After Engel’s discharge from the hospital he talked to Hibstenberg and induced the latter to employ him as steward on the “Pittsburgh”. The hospital record shows that Engel was an asthmatic and suffered several severe attacks of cardiac dyspnea. Engel’s certificate of discharge from the Marine Hospital stated: “Patient is not fit for duty and is to continue treatment as an out-patient.” If Captain Hibstenberg had asked to see Engel’s certificate of discharge the fact that he was not fit for duty would have been instantly apparent. Certainly under the circumstances ordinary prudence required Captain Hibstenberg to cause Engel to produce his certificate of discharge. Captain Hibstenberg’s failure to take this simple precaution under the circumstances alone was sufficient to render him negligent.
Moreover, Engel’s work on board the vessel was unduly heavy for an asthmatic. Captain Hibstenberg was aware that Engel’s breathing was labored and also that he had suffered heat prostration in the Persian Gulf. Captain Hibstenberg was also guilty of negligence because he failed to relieve Engel of his too arduous duties on board the vessel. There can be no doubt, as the court below found, that Engel’s work on board the “Pittsburgh” was a contributing cause to Engel’s death.
Engel was guilty of contributory neglience in assuming and carrying on his duties as steward and in making no complaint to Captain Hibstenberg.
The findings of the trial court in respect to the foregoing matters are correct and find adequate support in the evidence. The lower court’s conclusions seem to me to be unimpeachable.
The relationship between the master of a vessel and a seaman is not the ordinary one of master and servant. As was said by this court in Murphy v. American Barge Line Co., 169 F.2d 61, 64, “It is worthwhile reminding ourselves of the orthodox rule that seamen are wards of the admiralty. The employer also occupies a position of guardianship * * Cf. Spellman v. American Barge Line Co., 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 716, 719.
I think it should be pointed out that to hold the master of the vessel guilty of negligence under the circumstances of the case at bar is not to require, as the majority opinion seems to assert, that the captain of every vessel must receive a doctor’s certificate of fitness from each member of his crew or require each of them to undergo a physical examination to demonstrate good health. In the instant case the circumstances were such as to put the captain on notice of Engel’s impaired health.
I think that the decision of the court below should be affirmed.
McLAUGHLIN, C. J., concurs in this dissent.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS, GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, ■Circuit Judges.
PER 'CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the opinion prepared by the late Judge O’CONNELL and filed, by order of the court, on December 22, 1949, which opinion is adopted as the opinion of the court, the judgment of the district court will be reversed.
'Chief Judge BIGGS and Judges Mc-LAUGHLIN and STALEY dissent upon the grounds stated in the dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge BIGGS on December 22, 1949.