Union Insurance v. Smith

Citations

• 124 U.S. 405
• 8 S. Ct. 534
• 31 L. Ed. 497
• 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1876

Syllabus

<p>A time policy of marine insurance on a steam tug to be employed on the Lakes, insured her against the .perils of the Lakes, excepting perils “consequent upon and arising from or caused by” “incompetency of the master” “ or want of ordinary care and skill in navigating said vessel, rottenness, inherent defects,”.. “ and all other unseaworthiness.•’ While towing vessels in Lake Huron, in July, her shaft was broken, causing a leak at her stern. The leak was so far stopped that by moderate pumping she was kept free from water. She was taken in tow and carried by Port Huron and Detroit and into Lake Erie on a destination to Cleveland, where she belonged and her owner lived. She sprang a leak in Lake Erie, and sank, and was abandoned to the insurer. On the trial of a suit on the policy, it was claimed by the defendant that the accident made the vessel unseaworthy, and the failure to repair her at Port Huron or Detroit avoided thg policy. The court charged the jury that if an ordinarily-prudent master would have 'deemed it necessary to repair her before proceeding, and if her loss was’ occasioned by the omission to do so, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; but if, from the character of the injury an#'the leak, a master of competent judgment might reasonably hare supposed, in the exercise of ordinary care, that she was seaworthy to he towed to Cleveland, an.d therefore omitted to repair her, such omission was no bar to a recovery. Held, that there was no error 'in the charge.</p> <p>Bxpert testimony as to whether, under the circumstances, it was the exercise of good seamanship and prudence to attempt to have the vessel ' towed to Cleveland, was competent.</p> <p>The question of the competency of the particular witnesses to testify as experts, considered.</p> <p>The weight of the evidence of each witness was a question for the jury, in view of the testimony of each as to his experience.</p> <p>It was not improper to refuse to allow the defendant to ask a witness w