Carlson v. White Star Steamship Co.
Citations
- 39 Wash. 394
- 81 P. 838
- 1905 Wash. LEXIS 876
Syllabus
<p>Shipping—Ownership op Vessel—Evidence—Name op Company-Variance. In an action against a steamship company, a prima facie case of ownership of a vessel is shown by answers to interrogatories, and by certified copies of records from the United States custom office, showing that she was registered as owned by the company, and by an admission that she had ever since been operated by the company; and any variance therein by the omission of the word “The” in the corporate name of the company is immaterial.</p> <p>Same—Negligence—Common Undertaking'—Injury to Servant op Independent Contractor—Master and Servant—Vice Principal. The owner of a ship whose crew is engaged with the servants of a lighterage company in unloading lumber, is engaged in a common undertaking, and owes the duty to exercise care in its part of the work; and it is liable to the servants of the lighterage company for negligently sending down a heavy stick of timber, by shoving it through a porthole by hand to be received in a narrow place by an insufficient number of men, where machinery and appliances were available for handling the same with safety.</p> <p>Same—Concurrent Negligence op Independent Contractor.' In such case, the negligence of the lighterage company in not employing a sufficient number of men does not release the ship owner from liability for its own negligence.</p> <p>Same—Master and Servant—Vice Principal. The third officer of a vessel in charge of unloading lumber is a vice principal, and' his negligence in conducting the work must be imputed to the master.</p> <p>Same—Contributory Negligence. Where servants of a lighterage company were working in a narrow place, receiving lumber from a vessel, and had no voice in the matter of how it was to be unloaded, they were not guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to handle, as best they could, a big stick sent down without notice in an improper manner against their protest, and which was caught and thrown about in a violent manner
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- abrogating common law conclusive presumption that a boy less than fourteen years of age is incapable of committing rape
- “As the question of attorney’s fees was not presented for determination when the case was heard on its merits, such question cannot now be presented, on an application for rehearing, as a matter overlooked by the court in affirming the judgment.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Budkin, Crow, Dunbar, Fullerton, Hadley, Mount, Root
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.