271 F. 801 | 6th Cir. | 1921
The District Judge, in rejecting the defense of seaworthiness, said that, in his judgment the boat—
•‘was not seaworthy to be loaded more than 14 £e,et. It seemed to the court ou the trial, and time has not remoyod this impression, that, if this boat were to bo so deeply loaded, the most ordinary precaution to make her seaworthy would liave been to have placed a cock near the point of discharge of the siphon where it would be readily accessible. Without such an obvious and important, yet inexpensive, addition to her equipment, she cannot be said 10 have started from Buffalo in a seaworthy condition when loaded so deeply. We do not believe that the Harter Act should lie so- construed as to pass to 1he cargo owner responsibility lor carelessness on the part of the crew when that carelessness operates on a failure of ordinary prudence when furnishing' equipment. ‘To send this vessel on a voyage with her [outboard] siphon end under water, and with no safeguard save a cock so inaccessibly 1 seated and awkwardly operated as in this case, is without excuse under any reasonable construction of the Harter Act.”
“Beaving Buffalo on this occasion, or before leaving Buffalo, can you state whether or not the stop valve, the safety valve, in the siphon pipe in the Yiking was closed?”
We assume that the witness meant that the stop cock was closed before and at the time the ship left Buffalo, and we assume that he thought
The decree of the District Court is affirmed.