46 · erminmn ssronrsn.
» For the. claimants it is urged that by the maritime law the liability
of the shipyinl case of injury to seamen, extends only to proper care
and nursing, and the expenses of cure, so far as cure is possible; and
this court has so held in regard to accidents arising in the ordinary
. course of navigation. The City of Alexandria, 17`Fmn. REP. 390.
_ In that case, however, the proper equipment and outfit of the ship
were assumed. Pages 393, 396. There is no question that in mod-
ern maritime law the owners are responsible for due care and dili-
V gence in the proper equipment of the vessel for the contingencies of
the voyage. l Halverson v. Nisen, 3 Savvy. 562. See The Explorer,20
Fan. REP. 135; The Wanderer, Id. 140. In the use of modern ap-
pliances, such as a steam-winch in connection with a derrick, as in
this case, not for the prosecution of her ordinary navigation, but for
the conveniences of the ship in loading or unloading, it is more rea-_
sonable and equitable to apply the analogies of the municipal law in
regard to the obligation of owners and masters, rather than to extend
the limited rule of responsibility under the ancient maritime law to
these new, modern conditions, for which those limitations were never
designed. And, in applying the analogies of the municipal law, the
helplessness of seamen, and the imperative duty of obedience, as I
have above said, ought to impose upon masters and owners the high-
est rule ofdiligence and care in ascertaining the suiiiciency of all
such modern appliances for the exigencies to which they are to be
subjected. As that was not done in this case, the breaking of the ·
derrick through its own insufhciency must be deemed evidence of neg-
ligence on their part, which equitably imposes the consequences upon
them, rather than upon the seaman, who is an innocent sufferer
through theirwant of proper care. _
The injuries to the libelant were severe. He was partially para-
lyzed; but, after being cured so far as possible, he is permanently
disabled from pursuing his former occupations, though able to follow
` lighter pursuits upon land. On the whole, I think $1,500 will be a.
proper allowance by way of damages, with costs. _
Rimuv v. ALLEN and others.
(District .G'0urt,i W. D. Tennessee. February 21, 1885.)
1. ADMTRALTY*-PERSONAL 1NJURY—BEATING A Dacia Harm on Ro`ys·rAnoU·r._
The oiiicers of a steam-boat are liable for injuries caused by se erely beatin g
a deck hand or roustabout. `
2. Shun SUBJEGT·—·lDISCHARGE—IMPROPER Tum Ann Pmcm.
Adeck, hand cannot, for mere inefficiency, be driven from a steamboat at an
jnhospitable place on a dark, cold night, whereby he was subjected to unneces-
sary suifering and discomfort, without rendering the oiiicers liable to damages
for such treatment. — ‘