Sanford v. Standard Oil Company

Headnote

Master and servant—Negligence—Servants op different masters.

Plaintiff was working at a wharf in Weehawken, in loading the ship

Austria with barrels oí petroleum. His immediate employers were a firm of stevedores, Dick and Churchill. Under an arrangement between that firm and the defendant, the latter furnished the steam power and certain mechanical appliances, together with persons to manage the same and aid in loading the vessel, and the stevedores paid to the company a certain compensation per barrel for the total quantity of oil ladened into the vessel. Plaintiff’s duty was to stand at the gangway, and to signal, by a whistle, to Gebhard, the man who had charge of the hoisting, etc. Gebhard by raising a barrel without a signal, after saying that he would raise no more before dinner, knocked plaintiff into the hold, and injured him. Held, that the plaintiff was the servant of the stevedores, and that the man who directed the hoisting and lowering, was the servant of the defendant, and that defendant was liable for the neglect of its servant.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been received by him through th,e negligence of one Gebhard, a servant of the defendant. The plaintiff was an employee of a firm ■ of stevedores, Dick & Churchill, who had engaged with the master of the ship “Austria” to load it with barrels of petroleum which were in the store-house and upon the dock of the defendant at Weehawken, in the state of New Jersey. Messrs. Dick & Churchill made a contract to load this vessel with the master of the vessel. The defendant possessing and owning the dock and store-house in which the barrels of petroleum were stored, and from which they were to be loaded, also owned a steam engine and apparatus which was employed by the stevedores contracting to load the vessel, and the defendant contracted with Dick & Churchill to furnish the power and necessary men to run and manage the power to load the vessel for three-fourths of a cent per barrel, for the number of barrels put upon this vessel. The man Gebhard had been in defendant’s employment for several years, while the plaintiff had been in the employment of the stevedores for several years. Gebhard was generally employed in other service of the defendant, but owing to a strike which deprived the defendant of the servant who usually superintended the hoisting and lowering, they assigned that duty, on this occasion, to Gebhard.

The facts are very clearly.and briefly stated in the charge of the learned judge who tried the case, as follows: “ It appears that on the second day of June, 1886, the plaintiff in this suit was working at a wharf in Weehawken, in the state of New Jersey, in loading a ship called the Austria with barrels of petroleum. His immediate employers were a firm of stevedores, Dick & Churchill. Under an arrangement between that firm and the Standard Oil Company, the defendant here, the latter furnished' the steam power and certain mechanical appliances, together with persons to manage the same and aid in loading the vessel, and the stevedores paid to the company a certain compensation per barrel for the total quantity of oil ladened into the vessel.”

The stevedores furnished men to stow the cargo, and another man, who was the plaintiff in this case, to stand at the gangway and to signal (by the use of a whistle) the man who had charge of the hoisting and lowering part of the operation of loading the vessel, and the defendant furnished the man who managed the machinery ■to hoist the petroleum. The theory of the complaint is that the

man Grebhard, who managed the hoisting and lowering of the. barrels from the dock up the sides of the vessel upon a skid and so over the hold into which it was to be loaded, raised a barrel from the dock without any signal, and after he had said to the gangman that it was dinner time, and he would raise no more before dinner, and while plaintiff, the gangman, supposing that no more was to be done until after dinner, in accordance with the statement made by said Gebhard, and while his attention was directed to calling the men from the hold to dinner, which swung against the plaintiff and knocked him into the hold of the vessel, by which he received the injuries complained of. It is to recover for these injuries that this action is brought against the defendant, upon the theory that. Gebhard was the servant of the defendant, while the man standing at the gangway, the plaintiff, was the agent of the stevedores.