The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCGRANERY
The libel will be dismissed. The Court sets out herewith its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. One vital issue will first be briefly explored, however. Libellant urges that his uncontroverted evidence was that he had not brought aboard the vessel the ladder that injured his thumb; that no fellow-employee brought it aboard; and that no such appliance was upon any vehicle used by the stevedore in moving his men and equipment to and from the ship, at any time while libellant was on the vessel. From this evidence we are asked to presume that the extension ladder in question belonged to the vessel or constituted part of its equipment. Such an inference would be improper. It would constitute an unwarranted extension of the doctrine of Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S. Ct. 872, 90 L. Ed. 1099, which held that the traditional absolute obligation of seaworthiness owed by the owner of the vessel covered stevedores as well as seamen. The owner, with respect to the stevedore, was made an insurer of the vessel's appliances. To indulge in the presumption contended for by the libellant would make the owner the insurer of any appliance found on board, the origin of which the injured party was not prepared to show except to state that he had not put it there. We would not be justified in so broadening the Sieracki rule. We think that it is the libellant's duty to prove the origin of the offending appliance as an element of his case.
1. The respondent corporation, organized under the laws of Canada, operated and controlled Steamship 'Victoria County' at all times material to this action.
2. During the month of December, 1948, the vessel while at the port of Philadelphia required the services of Thomas A. Winters Ship Engineering Company, an independent contractor, to clean the holds. Part of this operation was performed while the vessel was at the yard of Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company near Chester, Pennsylvania. The libellant was employed by Thomas A. Winters Ship Engineering Company as a laborer to assist in the cleaning work.
3. On December 29, 1948, the libellant and a fellow-employee identified by him only as 'Porkchop' were cleaning the lower No. 4 hold, which was about forty feet high. In order to sweep off the beams supporting the deck above them, these men required the use of a ladder to reach the under side of the beams. While standing at the bottom of the hold, they called to other employees of Thomas A. Winters Ship Engineering Company who were working on the main deck to furnish them with a ladder. The ladder was lowered to them by the winchman, who was also a fellow-employee.
4. This ladder was described as a wooden extension ladder with two sections each about 20 feet long. The extended or upper sections was held in place by metal catches or brackets. There were three such brackets, one at each side at the lower end of the extended section and another one midway between them, shaped roughly like an inverted 'v' and intended to rest on a rung of the lower section in order to hold the upper section firmly in whatever position might be desired. The upper section could be raised or lowered by a rope operating through pulleys.
5. Libellant and his fellow-employee extended the ladder, and 'Porkchop' mounted to the top to clean the beams. The libellant stayed below on the bottom of the hold to steady the ladder. When it was necessary to move the ladder to a new position, 'Porkchop' descended to the bottom of the hold and the two men together shifted the ladder while it was still in an extended position.
6. In order to grasp the ladder firmly to move it, the libellant placed his hands at the sides of the ladder and his thumbs were on one rung of the lower section. While the ladder was being moved on one occasion, the upper section dropped down and the catch or bracket jammed libellant's left thumb against the rung of the lower section.
7. After the ladder telescoped and jammed the libellant's thumb, he slipped on the deck of the hold and the ladder fell with him. The libellant slipped in what he described as coal dust on the deck. His duties at that time were to assist in cleaning this substance from the hold, as contracted by his employer.
9. The lighting conditions in the hold at the time of the accident were described by the libellant as 'dark' although he testified that the hatch was completely open and it was daylight. He was able to see that the ladder was in a defective condition by means of the light then available. The Court finds under all of the evidence that the lighting was adequate at the time of the accident.
10. No evidence was produced by the libellant to establish the ownership of the defective ladder which caused this accident, or to show any trade custom which would create a reasonable inference that the ladder was supplied by the vessel.
1. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and ...