_ 48 moan:. amroarnn, vol. 38.
covers, and the other lifted the other, and placed their edges together.
` Each cover weighed about 70 pounds, and they were very greasy at the
time, owing to the dampened dust arisingfrom the grain. While the
covers were thus being sprung together, one of them slipped, and fell
into the hold below,.striking the libelant, and causing the injuries for
· which he now sues.
Several points are made on the part of the defense, One is that the
libelant was at the time of the accident the servant of the claimant, en-
gaged in a common employment with the sailors who undertook to place
the cover in position, and therefore cannot recover for negligence of a
fellow—servant. Upon this point my opinion is that the relation of fel-
low-servant did not exist. between the libelant and the mate who directed
the placing of the covers, or between the libelant and the seamen who
were engaged in handling the covers at the time the cover fell.
Next, it is contended thatthe libelant’s injuries are attributable to his
own carelessness, because he resumed work under the hatch before the
adjustment of the hatch-covers was completed. But when the hatch-
- covers were _placed in position so as to exclude the light from those be-
low, the libelant, in absence of notice to the contrary, was entitled to
assume that the adjustment of the hatch—covers had been completed, and
especially so when the mate who had directed the placing of the hatch-
covers indicated to him that it was time for him to resume his work in
the hatch. i- In my opinion, the libelant was not guilty of negligence in
being under the hatch under the circumstances. . .
Third, it is contended on the part of the claimant that it is not shown
that thefalling of the hatch was caused by negligence. Upon this point
_ ‘ my opinion is also adverse to the claimant. The evidence, as I under-
stand it, shows negligence in the performance of the ship’s work of put-
ting on the hatch-covers. The negligence consisted in attempting to
ohandle the cover by a single man, instead of by two. The cover was
greasy, and liable to slip, and in case of any slip it would be impossible
, for a single man to holdit, weighing, as it did, some 70 pounds. It
was, in my opinion, negligence for a single man to attempt to handle
, the cover while springing it home under such circumstances, and espe-
A cially was it negligence to do so without warning to the men in the hatch,
» after the covers had been oncelaid down in such a_ position as to indi-
. cate to the men below that the covers werein place. The libelant, in-
. stead of being warned, was, in legal effect, notified by the mate that the
r covers were in p1ac_e. Under such circumstances, I think it must be
held that negligence on the part of the ship has been shown, and under
, . the principles stated in the case of The Kate Conn, 2 Fed. Rep. 241, af-
` _ nrmed by the circuit court, 8 Fed. Rep. 719, the libelant is entitled to
,.recover his damages of the vessel herself. Let there be a decree in favor
of the libelant, with a reference to ascertain the amount of the damages
sustained. I 2-· ·
r . , , . - •