maintenance, and cure, and that section 20 of the La Follette Act does not affect the question, saying:

"Section 20 of the Seamen's Act declares 'seamen having command shall not be held to be fellow servants with those under their authority,' and full effect must be given this whenever the relationship between such parties becomes important. But the maritime law imposes upon a shipowner liability to a member of the crew injured at sea by reason of another member's negligence without regard to their relationship; it was of no consequence therefore to petitioner whether or not the alleged negligent order came from a fellow servant; the statute is irrelevant. The language of the section discloses no intention to impose upon shipowners the same measure of liability for injuries suffered by the crew while at sea as the common law prescribes for employers in respect of their employés on shore."

The enactment of workmen's compensation laws in many states has given rise to the question how far they govern or modify the general admiralty doctrine as to parties injured to whom an admiralty remedy is available. This is settled (as far as a decision by five judges against four can settle it) by Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen. Jensen was a longshoreman employed in unloading a ship, and while still on the ship was accidentally killed. The New York Compensation Commission awarded his widow compensation on the basis of the New York statute. On appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that the statute, in so far as it attempted to modify the general maritime law as accepted by the federal courts, or works material prejudice to its characteristic features, was invalid, and that the saving to suitors of a common-law remedy did not apply to a proceeding before such a commission, as it was unknown to the common law.

This decision was rendered May 21, 1917. Thereupon

48 244 U. S. 205, 37 Sup. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086, L. R. A. 1918C, 451, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900.

Congress amended section 24(3) and section 256 of the Judicial Code so as to make the first part read:

"Of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases the right of a commonlaw remedy where the common law is competent to give it, and to claimants the rights and remedies under the workmen's compensation law of any state."

The italicized part is the addition."

Since this amendment it has been held in Maryland that' giving notice of claim under the Maryland statute was not a waiver of any right in admiralty. The case however was influenced if not entirely controlled by the fact that the claimant at the time of the notice was not in a condition to appreciate what he was doing."

PERSONAL TORTS ARISING FROM RELATION OF PASSENGERS TO VESSEL

102. The relation between the passengers and the ship or her owners is governed by the general law of pas

senger carriers, except in so far as it is modified by

statute.

The federal statutes contain many provisions looking to the safety of passengers and their accommodations. Chapter 6, tit. 48, of the Revised Statutes (sections 4252-4289), and chapter 2, tit. 52, of the Revised Statutes (sections 4463-4500), contain these provisions in detail.* They con

49 40 Stat. 395 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, §§ 991, 1233). Amendment held unconstitutional by Supreme Court May 17, 1920. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 40 Sup. Ct. 438, 64 L. Ed. 834. 50 Siebert v. Patapsco Ship Ceiling & Stevedore Co. (D. C.) 253 Fed. 685.

* These sections, as they stood in the Revised Statutes, have been much modified by subsequent legislation, some having been repealed and many amended. But their provisions have been carried into the more recent acts in amplified form, and in the direction of more rigid requirements. They cannot be discussed for lack of space.

HUGHES, ADM. (2D ED.)-14

tain, in general, regulations to insure a skillful crew, limitation of the number of passengers carried, many provisions against fire, requirements for boats, life preservers, and other appliances necessary in wrecks, and they prescribe heavy penalties for a violation of any of these provisions. But, outside of these statutes, any improper treatment of a passenger by any of the crew inflicted within the line of his duty is the subject of an action. For instance, in the Willamette Valley,"1 a passenger was allowed to recover damages for refusal to accept a first-class ticket and for giving him second-class accommodations.

In the Yankee," a vigilance committee escorted an obnoxious citizen to a ship in the harbor, and recommended him to take a sea voyage, and the ship carried him away. He sued the owners of the ship in personam, and the court sustained the jurisdiction.

A passenger may proceed in rem for any actionable injury received aboard a ship, except assaults.53

OBLIGATIONS TO PERSONS RIGHTFULLY ON VESSEL, BUT BEARING NO RELATION TO IT

103. Persons rightfully on a vessel are entitled to demand the exercise of ordinary care towards them on the part of the vessel, under the doctrine of implied invitation.

In LEATHERS v. BLESSING," a patron of a steamer, who was expecting some cargo by her, went aboard to make

They will be found in U. S. Comp. St. 1916, §§ 7997, 7999–8006, 80118014, 8225-8276.

§ 102. 51 (D. C.) 71 Fed. 712.

52 Fed. Cas. No. 18,124, 1 McAll. 467.

53 City of Panama, 101 U. S. 462, 25 L. Ed. 1061; Vueltabajo (D. C.) 163 Fed. 594. Also at common law. Austro-American S. S. Co. v. Thomas, 248 Fed. 231, 160 C. C. A. 309, L. R. A. 1918D, 873. § 103. 54 105 U. S. 626, 26 L. Ed. 1192.

inquiries about it, and was injured by a bale of cotton falling on him. He libeled in personam, and the court allowed a recovery.

The most frequent cases of this sort are those of laborers employed in and about a vessel in port. For instance, suppose that stevedores are employed as independent contractors to load or discharge a vessel, whether by the vessel herself or her charterers. In such case the vessel is not responsible for the acts of the stevedores' men causing damage.55

The vessel would be responsible for the act of a member of its crew if acting at the time in its service, though not if acting at the time in the stevedore's service.56

If the vessel is properly fitted up and constructed as usual, she is not responsible to any one who falls into one of her ordinary openings. These questions have frequently arisen in the case of men falling into open hatchways.

The duties and obligation of the vessel in reference to open hatchways have been the subject of much litigation. It has frequently been held that, so far as the crew of a vessel is concerned, and as regards workmen upon the vessel, like stevedores or their employés, it is not negligence to leave a hatchway open. Such men are supposed to be familiar with the construction of a ship, and to know that hatchways are necessary structures, and are made to be left open for the purpose of loading. If, therefore, the construction of the ship and its hatchways is proper, and there is no such defect about them as could be discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care, the fact that they are left open would not give a right of action against the ship, unless they were left open at a point where the laborers upon a ship would not naturally expect to find them open, and

55 INDRANI, 41 C. C. A. 511, 101 Fed. 596; Elleric (D. C.) 134 Fed. 146.

56 Joseph John, 86 Fed. 471, 30 C. C. A. 199; Joseph B. Thomas, 86 Fed. 658, 30 C. C. A. 333, 46 L. R, A. 58.

7

had no rail or guard rope around them, or light to indicate their existence. As the cases well say, the doctrine of holes in highways or places where people are accustomed to resort has no application to such places, for the deck of a ship is not a highway, and men experienced in loading ships are assumed to take the risk of such ordinary openings as. would be expected to exist upon a ship. If the hatchway was in every respect proper as far as the construction goes, and there was no negligence in uncovering it, and not properly guarding it, and this was done by the stevedore as an independent contractor, the ship would not be liable for his act."7

A hatchway left open by some one connected with the ship may, however, cause injuries to a passenger which I would entitle him to sue where the crew or stevedores could not, because a passenger is not supposed to be as familiar with the construction of a ship as such men, and the measure of duty of a carrier towards a passenger is a much higher one. If there is an unguarded opening in parts of the ship where passengers are permitted to go, and an injury is received in consequence, the passenger could proceed against the ship.58

57 Jersey City (D. C.) 46 Fed. 134; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 71 Fed. 314, 18 C. C. A. 54; Claus v. Steamship Co., 89 Fed. 646, 32 C. C. A. 282; Dwyer v. National S. S. Co. (C. C.) 4 Fed. 493; Saratoga (D. C.) 87 Fed. 349; Id., 94 Fed. 221, 36 C. C. A. 208; Auchenarden (D. C.) 100 Fed. 895; Roymann v. Brown, 105 Fed. 250, 44 C. C. A. 464; INDRANI, 101 Fed. 596, 41 C. C. A. 511; Consolidation Coastwise Co. v. Conley, 250 Fed. 679, 163 C. C. A. 25. 58 Furnessia (D. C.) 35 Fed. 798. But, if he goes where he has no business to go, he cannot recover. Elder Dempster Shipping Co. v. Pouppirt, 125 Fed. 732, 60 C. C. A. 500.