holding that the Limitation of Liability Act "afford[s] protection to the physically remote owner who, after the ship breaks ground, has no effective control over his water-borne servants”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the Limitation of Liability Act "afford[s] protection to the physically remote owner who, after the ship breaks ground, has no effective control over his water-borne servants”
- finding that owner of charter fishing boat owed passenger a duty to prevent boat’s transom from becoming excessively slippery
- explaining that “[ejxoneration is contingent upon a finding of no contributory fault”
- “[W]here the operational command of the whole enterprise is in the hands of the owner then present, he is charged with privity and knowledge on usual principles for the negligent acts of those under his effective command.” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GEE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The court below, which heard the witnesses, observed their demeanor, etc., found, on ample evidence both ways, that the transom in question was dry or virtually so and not unreasonably slippery. The majority does not find otherwise. 1 The court below found that Mrs. Aldacosta simply “missed the dock with her foot,” though the mate was holding her arm to help her off. It did not find that she slipped, nor do we: “Despite the mate’s assistance Brenda [Mrs. Aldacosta] missed the dock with her foot and fell . . . ,” 2
No one has yet found that Mrs. Aldacosta slipped. Until someone does, the absent towel bears no more causal relation to her injury than the absence of running lights. Baffled by such reasoning, I dissent.
. Indeed, to divine a board’s degree of wetness from a dry record would be a striking appellate feat.
. Supra at p. 755.