onswronn tv. me wnms cur. 47
[   f Caawronn v. Tun Wants CrrY.‘ · .',
i _ . `_(Disl·rici Oourt, El   New York. Februa.ry;8,i1889.)
*1. Mésrmn mm SElRVANT—lNJURY ro STEVEDORE—NEGLIGENCE·-LIABILHY or
Essen. ~
. Libelant was engaged in trimming grain under the hatch in the hold of a
vessel, when seamen placed the hatch-cover on. Libelant stood aside while
the cover was being put on, but afterwards resumed work on the mate’s or·
i der. Twoof the seamen then attempted to spring the hatch·covers together,
when one cover, which was greasy, slipped, and fell upon the libelant, caus-
ing injuries for which this suit was brought. Held, thatthe vessel was liable
V for·libelant’s damage. ‘ . » · `
2. Baum--Fmrmow-S¤nvsN·r—GRA1N~Tn1mumn nm Samoa. · ‘
, V A graimtrimmer, employed by a contractor to assist in trimming the grain
with which a vessel is being loaded, is not the fellow-servant of a sailor on
h the ship} _ ·
· _.In Admiralty. · > » ‘
l Action for personalvinjuries received by libelantywhile engaged in
trimming grain in the hold of the steam-ship Wells City, through the
··:i`alling uponhim of one of the ship’s hatch-covers. · _ ‘> ' · A
  »——John L`Allen, for libelant. A ¢‘¤f u   7
  E. Bi;O¢mvers,· for the steam·ship.     — ‘ .
·· ’BENEDICT, J. This action is brought to recoverdarnages _for injuries
received by the libelant while he was engaged in trimming grain inthe
{ hold of the steam-ship Wells City, through the falling upon him of one
of the ship’s hatch-covers; The libelant was a grain-trimmer, employed A
· bye contractor to work in trimming the cargo of grain then being loaded
·—on board the steam-ship. At the time of the accident the trimming
’ cwas finished all but leveling off the grain under the hatch. *·?Th spout
· had been removed, and,as it was raining hard, the mate ofthe shipdi-
‘ rected three of the crew topput on the hatch-covers. The mate was at
the time in the hold with the libelaut. ' When the placing of the covers
in position was commenced, warning seems to have been given to the
M men in the hold, and they stepped 'out from under the hatch in order
{to be out of danger. While they were out of the hatch, the covers were
· all put.=in position, and thereby the hold was sodarkened asto indicate
· itopersons below that the covers were in place. Accordingly the mate
‘ motioned the libelant that it-was time for him to resume workgandv the
‘ libelant, with otbers,.thereupon stepped back into-the hatch, to conclude
‘? his work of trimming the grain in the "hatcbwayr After the inen *had
· stepped back-under the hatch, however, two of the sailors‘undertook*Vto ’
rspring twoof theghatch-covers together; the covers having-failed to go
  home when laiddown. — In doing this, one-ofl·the men lifted~one*of’ the
A {Reported by EdwardCi Renedict, Esq., ofthe New York bar. W .l.:;·z   1. 
’As to who are fellow-servants within the rule exempting the master from liability
to one, for mijuries caused by the neggigence of another, see Railway Co. v. Welch,
£Tex.) 10 S. . Rep. 529, and note; Su ivan v. Railroad Co., (N. Y.) 20 N. E. Rep. 569,
nd note; Wolcott v. Studebaker, 34. Fed. Rep. 8, and note. t