# Warner v. Goltra > Supreme Court of Missouri · December 20, 1933 · 334 Mo. 396 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3537654 ## Case - **Full name:** Claire A. Warner, Administratrix of Estate of John M. Warner, Appellant, v. Edward F. Goltra, Doing Business Under the Style and Name of the Goltra Barge Line - **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri - **Decided:** December 20, 1933 - **Citations:** 334 Mo. 396; 67 S.W.2d 47; 1933 Mo. LEXIS 705 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Tipton - **Judges:** Tipton - **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3537654 ## Opinion text *399 TIPTON, J. This is an action for damages for the wrongful death of John M. Warner. The appellant’s second amended petition engaged to serve in any capacity on board the-vessel. We .believe that, the term “master” is used as separately and distinctly from the.,term “seaman”as if the act read: “Every person-having the command of ¡any vessel . . . shall be deemed to1 be the‘master’” and-every other “person (apprentices excepted) who shall be employed or-engaged, to serve in any capacity on board:the same shall be deemed and taken to be a ‘seaman.’ We believe that the words used in this section are not ambiguous or uncertain: Congress clearly expressed in the-words it ¡.used in this section just what it intended and there is ,no room for ..construction. The first part of Section 713, -supra, says, ‘ ‘.In- the construction of this chapter;” then this section defines ‘‘master,”• .and ‘‘seaman.” The reading of this chapter clearly shows that Congress had in mind the distinction between “master” .and ‘.‘seaman,” and that the term “seaman” did not include -the word “master.” To illustrate, in the following .sections of this’.chapter .that the term “seaman” does not include “master” .is .clearly-shown by-the context thereof. Section 561 says, “.That the. master to whom such boy (apprentice) is to be bound is a proper person.for the purpose.” Section 564 states that the master of every vessel .bound from a port in the'United States to any foreign port shall before he proceeds on such voyage make an agreement in writing or in printing, with every seaman whom he carries to sea as one of:the.crew,, in the manner there-inafter mentioned; and every such'agreement ¡shall, as nearly as possible be in the form given in the table marked “A,”-in the schedule annexed to this chapter, and shall-be dated, at .the -time of the first signature thereof, and shall be signed by .the master before .any, seaman signs the same. - Section’565, ¡among .other .things, states: “When the crew is first engaged the • agreement .shall be-signed in duplicate, and one part shall be retained by the shipping-commissioner, and the other part shall contain a special -place -or form for the description and signatures of persons engaged-subsequently, to the.first departure *403 of the ship, and shall be delivered to the master. ’ ’ Section 571 ■ is as follows: “Every master who engages any seamen in any place in which there is a consular officer, otherwise than as required by the preceding section, shall incur a penalty of not more than One Hundred Dollars, for which penalty the vessel shall be held liable.” The first part of Schedule “A,” referred to in this section, reads- as follows : “ It is agreed between the master and the seamen or mariners of the-, of which- is at present master, or whoever shall go for master, now bound from the port of —■——, —:-, to The schedule and sections referred to above clearly show that the term “seaman” does not include the term “master.” We, therefore, believe that Congress clearly intended to distinguish “master” from “seaman” and that the word “seaman” does not include the word “master” so as to give the master cause of action under Section 688 of this chapter. Nor do we believe that the fact that the vessel was temporarily in charge of the pilot, at- the time of the collision that caused Warner to be thrown into the river, would change the status of the captain or master to that of a seaman. He was still in command of the vessel, except insofar as her navigation was concerned. In the case of The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186 , 39 L. Ed. 943 , 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 804, the United States Supreme Court said: “Nor are we satisfied with the conduct of the master in leaving the pilot in sole charge of the vessel. While the pilot doubtless supersedes the master for the time being in the- command and navigation of the ship, and his orders must be obeyed in' all matters connected with her navigation, the master is not wholly absolved from his duties while the pilot is on board, and may advise with him, and even displace him in case he is intoxicated or manifestly incompetent. He is still in command of the vessel, except so‘far as her navigation is concerned, and bound to see that there is a sufficient watch on deck, and that the men are attentive to their duties. [The Iona, L. R. 1 P. C. 426.] “In The Batzvier, 1 Spinks Eccl. 378, 383, it was said by Dr. Lushington: ‘There are many cases in which I should hold that, notwithstanding the pilot *has charge, it is the duty-of the master to prevent accident, and not to abandon the vessel entirely to the pilot; but that there are certain duties he has to discharge (notwithstanding there is a pilot on board) for the benefit of the owners.’ In an official report made by a maritime commission in 1874, the Elder Brethren of Trinity House are said to have expressed the -opinion ‘that in well-conducted ships the master does not regard the presence of a duly licensed pilot in compulsory pilot Waters as freeing him *404 from every obligation -to attend to the safety of the vessel; but that, while the master sees that his ofSpers and crew duly attend to the pilot.’s orders, he--himself is bound to heep a vigilant eye on the navigation of the vessel, and, when exceptional circumstances exist, not only to urge upon the pilot to use every precaution, but to insist upon such being taken.’ [Marsden on Collisions, 255.]” We do not believe that the master can be considered a seaman within the purview of Sections 688 and 713, supra; the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to appellant’s petition. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed. All concur. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3537654. Public record. Not legal advice.