The opinion of the court was delivered by: RYAN
Walter Chowaniec, a seaman, has filed two suits to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him on September 19, 1954, while he was employed aboard the U.S. Naval Ship Tamalpais, which was at the time operated and under the control of Marine Transport Lines, Inc.
One suit is a suit at law against the Marine Transport Lines, Incorporated, which operated, managed and controlled the vessel under contract with the owner, United States of America.
The other is a suit in admiralty against the United States of America, the owner of the vessel.
I read the libel as a libel in personam as well as one in rem, it being filed under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 741 et seq. Both of these suits have been consolidated for trial.
The suit against the Marine Transport Lines, Inc. is predicated upon a claim asserted under the Jones Act and for unseaworthiness of the vessel. The suit against the United States of America is predicated upon a claim for unseaworthiness.
I find from the evidence that on December 19, 1954, the Tamalpais, a tanker, anchored at Stephenville, Newfoundland, there to discharge a cargo of fuel to the Harmon U.S. Air Force Base. There was no dock at that time at this installation and the vessel was moored in the basin.
The fuel cargo was discharged through a cargo hose which ran from the ship's manifold over the starboard side of the vessel and then through the water in the basin to the shore, where it was connected to pipes leading to the storage tanks on shore. The cargo hose was secured to the ship's manifold by a flange which had in it accommodations for at least eight bolts which secured the flange of the hose to the flange of the ship's valve.
The record shows that when the cargo hose was attached, according to the smooth log entries, it was an eight-inch hose. The use of this hose was continued during the entire discharging operation.
Discharging of the cargo through this hose continued through the 17th of December and throughout the entire day of December 18th and the night.
During that time the weather appears to have been cold but clear, save for some intermittent cloudy periods and the wind of not extraordinary violence or force.
The log shows that on December 19th, at 7.58, there was a strong wind of gale force and the discharging operations had to be stopped and the hose was disconnected. The hose was later reconnected that same morning at 10.10 and discharging operations were resumed ten minutes later, at 10.20. Later pressure on the discharging operations was reduced at 10.50.
The log shows that these winds of gale force continued throughout the morning and were particularly present at 12 noon. The testimony is that there were gusts of wind at that time of force 8 on the starboard beam. These gale force winds continued until 13.15 when the cargo operations aboard the ship were discontinued, and the discharge of the oil through the cargo hose was stopped and the valve on the ship was shut off.
However, the hose was not disconnected aboardship because they were awaiting word from shore that the shore valve had been shut down. It appears that after the valve on the ship had been shut down at 13.15, the chief mate of the ship ordered that some of the bolts and nuts fastened to them -- which held the flange of the hose flush to the flange of the valve and made the coupling -- should be removed. They were so removed, and they were removed prior to the time of any line being tied to the hose to prevent the hose from being carried away and swung around the deck or falling into the water.
It was after these bolts had been removed from the flange that the plaintiff seaman here, Walter Chowaniec, was ordered, with others, to attempt to affix lines to the hose to make it secure to the ship. While he was about that operation with his fellow seamen, the hose broke away from the manifold because the remaining ...