Court Opinion

ID: 9442585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:52:18.221682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:08.358908
License: Public Domain

BIGGS, Chief Judge,
(dissenting in part and concurring in part).
The duty of the owner to maintain a seaworthy ship is an absolute one: The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 173-175, 23 S.Ct. 483, 47 L.Ed. 760. It has no connection with negligence. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099; Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 321 U.S. 96, 64 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.Ed. 561. If the ship or her gear is not safe for use, the ship is not seaworthy. I think that both the court below and this court have returned to the doctrine of negligence of Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio, 277 U.S. 151, 48 S.Ct. 457, 72 L.Ed. 827. In Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., supra, the Supreme Court pointed out that before the decision in The Osceola, “ * * * the right of the seaman to recover for injuries caused by unseaworthiness seems to have been rested on the negligent failure, usually of the seaman’s officers or fellow seamen, to supply seaworthy appliances”, [321 U.S. 96, 64 S.Ct. 457,] and that The Osceola made plain that the duty of the shipowner to maintain the vessel in a seaworthy condition was an absolute one. In the Mahnich case the Supreme Court disapproved Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio to the extent that the latter *216decision conflicted with the principle just stated. 321 U.S. at .page 105, 66 S.'Ct. at page 460.
I assume that the majority'would concede that if the foreign substance, jello, had remained upon the stairway of the “Peckham” for several days, the stairway, and hence-the ship, should have been deemed to have been unseaworthy. Someone spills grease upon a rope or jello upon a stairway. The rope, an appliance, -arid the stairway are unseaworthy if they are thereby rendered unfit for the use for which they were intended. As was said in thé" Mahnich case, 321 U.S. at page 104, 64 S'.Ct. at page 459, quoting from The Osceola, “ * * * the owner’s obligation is ‘to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship.’ ” While the spilling of grease upon a rope or jello upon a stairway might be an act of negligence for which recovery might foe had by an injured seaman under the Jones Act, 46 -U.S.C.A. § 688, once the dangerous situation has been created it is the absolute obligation of the shipowner to correct it. If it is not corrected and a seaman is injured because of it-the shipowner must answer in damages. This is the equivalent of .the requirement of “a safe place to work” for the seaman, a doctrine not novel in the admiralty law. See the Mahnich opinion, 321 U.S. at page 102, 64 S.-Ct. at page 458, and the, authorities cited therein.
The majority apparently are of the opinion that because the stairway on the “Peck-ham” was “transitorily” in an unsafe state that this absolves the shipowner from liability. Incidentally,' it nowhere appears how long the jello had remained upon the stairway; albeit, in my view, the period during which the-stairway was in an unsafe state is immaterial under the circumstances-of the instant case. If the stairway-, was in a condition dangerous for the use for which it was intended, however, “transitorily”, it was unseaworthy. It remained so while the unsafe condition persisted. The element of time which has intruded itself in this case in both the opinion of this court and-that of the court below is irrelevant under the doctrine of the shipowner’s absolute liability.
I would enter judgment for the lifoeltant on the cause of action for damages.
I am in accord with the view of the majority on the issues presented respecting the award of maintenance and cure.