This is а cross-appeal in a libel proceeding, filed by Eehmundo Heredia, a citizen of Peru, hereaftеr referred to as libelant, against the Peruvian steamship Apurimae (G. F. Davies, master), hereafter referred to as respondent, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him op that vessel while she was at the dock in New York City. Libelant was employed as a messman on the Apurimae. He claims that his arm wаs broken and that he received other injuries as the result of falling down a stairway while carrying dishes in the regular course of his duties from the galley to the dining room. He claims that his fall was caused by the defective condition of one of the steps of the stairway, in that a piece of metal, the function of which was to hold down the rubber covering of the step, had become loosened and projected above the lеvel of the step, and that this projecting piece of metal caught his foot as he was procеeding down the stairway, and caused him to fall to the bottom. The allegations of libelant as to the condition of the step and the manner in which he received his injury were denied by respondent, and the evidence introduced was widely conflicting. The . District Judge found, however, that libelant’s injury occurred substantially as claimed by him, and, аfter a careful review of the evidence, we approve this finding.
Respondent’s first contention is that, as libelant was a citizen of Peru and was injured while in the performance of his duties on a Peruvian ship, the cоurts of the United States are without jurisdiction to entertain the libel. With this contention we cannot
*501
agree. In the absence of treaty stipulation, the courts of admiralty of the United States have jurisdiction of all matters appertaining to a foreign ship while in the ports of this country. The Belgenland,
While an admiralty court of the United States is under no obligation to entertаin jurisdiction of a libel to recover for personal injuries, where libelant is a foreigner and the ship is a fоreign ship, it is inclined to do so when (as in this ease) it is necessary to prevent a failure of justice, or when the rights of the parties would be thereby best promoted. Cunard Steamship Co. v. Bmith, supra. And when in such ease the District Cоurt exercises its discretion in favor of assuming jurisdiction, this discretion will not be reviewed on appeal, in the absence of showing that it was exercised on wrong principles, or that the District Judge .has acted “so absolutely differently from the view which the court of appeal holds that they are justified in saying he has exercised it wrongly.” The Belgenland, supra. There was no such showing in this case. On the contrary we think that the District Court propеrly took jurisdiction of the cause.
Respondent next contends that the ■court should have applied the law of Peru in deciding the case, and that under that law a seaman had no right to libel a ship for personаl injuries. As the injury complained of was received within the waters of the United States, we think that the learned District ■Judge properly held that the rights of the parties were to be determined by the law of this country, the lex loci delicti. Minor on Conflict of Laws, par. 195, p. 481; The Hanna Nielsen (C. C. A. 2d)
Proof was offered that under the law of Peru there was no right to attach a vessel, except in certain cases (among which claims for personal injuries were not included), except at the port of registry; but this proof related to a matter of procedure, as to which the law of the forum and not that of the foreign nation governs. Minor on Conflict of Laws, pаr. 205 et seq.; Pritchard v. Norton,
As stated above, we approve thе finding of the District Judge as to the manner in which libelant’s injury occurred, and we agree with him, also, that respondent is liаble in damages to libelant on account of the defective condition of the stairway which caused the injury. The Osceola,
Modified.