Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255 (1922). · Go Syfert
Search
Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255 (1922). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A vessel is unseaworthy if it lacks proper appliances or contains dangerous mislabeled supplies, entitling a crew member to compensatory damages for resulting injuries.

A seaman sustained injuries after an explosion caused by a gasoline-filled can labeled as coal oil and due to the absence of life preservers on a vessel in navigable waters. Although the trial court erroneously instructed the jury based on common-law negligence rather than maritime unseaworthiness, the Supreme Court finds no prejudice. Under maritime law, a vessel is unseaworthy if it lacks proper appliances or contains dangerous mislabeled supplies, and owners are liable for injuries resulting from such unseaworthiness. Because the jury's verdict could have been reached under the unseaworthiness doctrine, the erroneous instruction did not affect the outcome.

G Cite
cited 8× by 6 distinct cases, last quoted 1960 · 5 courts · …the general rules of the maritime law apply whether the proceeding be instituted in an admiralty or common-law court. at p. 259 ✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1971 · …we think the trial court might have told the jury that without regard to negligence the vessel was unseaworthy when she left the dock . . . and that if thus unseaworthy and one of the crew received damage as the direct result thereof, he was entitled to recover compensatory dama… ✓ Topic ↗
520 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 57 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Neal v. McGinnis, Inc. (kyed, 1989-07-25) · Strongest negative: Kahue v. Pacific Environmental Corp. (hid, 2011-11-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" Kahue v. Pacific Environmental Corp. (3×)
D. Haw. · 2011 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Usner, 400 U.S. at 497[, 91 S.Ct. 514 ] (“[Unseaworthiness arose] from its humble origin as a dictum in an obscure case in 1922 .... ’’(citing Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255 [, 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 ] (1922))); Sieracki 328 U.S. at 104 [, 66 S.Ct. 872 ] (Stone, C.J., dissenting) (“[I]ndemnity for injuries resulting from unseaworthiness was first recognized by this Court in The Osceola.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Neal v. McGinnis, Inc.
E.D. Ky. · 1989 · confidence medium
Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259 [ 42 S.Ct. 475, 476 , 66 L.Ed. 927 (1922) ].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carlson v. Pacific Far East Lines
Cal. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
(Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale, 358 U.S. 625, 628 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 550, 553 , 79 S.Ct. 406 ]; Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 409 [ 98 L.Ed. 143, 151 , 74 S.Ct. 202 ]; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259 [ 66 L.Ed. 927, 930 , 42 S.Ct. 475 ]; Intagliata v. Shipowners & Mer. etc. Co., 26 Cal.2d 365, 371 [ 159 P.2d 1 ].) California Stevedore and Ballast Company contends that since Carlson’s action and judgment were based exclusively on the doctrine of unseaworthi *887 ness, federal maritime law and not this state’s Witt v. Jackson rule, was applicable to its claim of l…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vittone v. American President Lines
Cal. Ct. App. · 1964 · confidence medium
(Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 260 [ 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927, 930 ]; The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110, 120 [ 56 S.Ct. 707 , 80 L.Ed. 1075, 1079 ].) “If the owner is liable for furnishing an unseaworthy appliance, even when he is not negligent, a fortiori his obligation is unaffected by the fact that the negligence of the officers of the vessel contributed to its unseaworthiness. ” (Mahnich v. Southern S.S.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hess v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1960 · confidence medium
“The general rules of the maritime law apply whether the proceeding be instituted in an admiralty or common-law court.” Id., at 259.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Intagliata v. Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co. (4×)
Cal. · 1945 · confidence medium
It is now settled that “The general rules of the maritime law apply whether the proceeding be instituted in an admiralty or common law court.” (Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259 [ 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 ] ; Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 380-381 [ 38 S.Ct. 501 , 62 L.Ed. 1171 ]; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149,159 [ 40 S.Ct. 438 , 64 L.Ed. 834 , 11 A.L.R. 1145 ] ; Engel v. Davenport, 271 U.S. 33 [ 46 S.Ct. 410 , 70 L.Ed. 813 ]; Panama R.
cited Cited as authority (rule) District of Columbia v. Chessin
D.C. Cir. · 1932 · confidence medium
Ed. 448 ; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255, 259, 42 S. Ct. 475 , 66 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) McClure v. Wilson
Wash. · 1928 · confidence medium
A. 635; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255, 259, 66 L. ed. 927, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kuhlman v. W. & A. FLETCHER CO.
3rd Cir. · 1927 · confidence medium
Ed. 1171 ; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255, 258, 259 , 42 S. Ct. 475 , 66 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) The Navarino
E.D.N.Y · 1925 · confidence medium
Ed. 760 ; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255, 258, 259 , 42 S. Ct. 475 , 66 L.
discussed Cited "see" Floyd County Mutual Insurance Association v. CNH Industrial America LLC
N.D. Iowa · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259 (1922) (“[M]ere error, without more, is 1 The Court notes that plaintiff’s motion, which also includes its arguments in favor of certification for interlocutory appeal, does not comply with the Local Rules.
examined Cited "see" Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co. (3×)
S.D. Tex. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
Although Plaintiff did not invoke this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction in his Complaint, it is well established that maritime law applies in “those eases where the subject matter of the controversy bears the type of significant relationship to traditional maritime activities necessary to invoke admiralty jurisdiction.” Laredo Offshore Constructors, Inc. v. Hunt Oil Co., 754 F.2d 1223, 1231 (5th Cir.1985) (relying upon Fossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U.S. 731, 736-38 , 81 S.Ct. 886, 890-92 , 6 L.Ed.2d 56 (1961)); see Watson on Behalf of Watson v. Massman Const. Co., 850 F.2d 219, 220-21 (…
examined Cited "see" Klosters Rederi A/S v. Cowden (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255 , 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 (1922).
cited Cited "see" Jong Hee Park v. United States Lines, Inc.
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259 (1922).
examined Cited "see" C. J. Paul Delome v. Union Barge Line Company, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Platzer Shipyard, Inc., Third-Aprtydefendant-Appellee- Cross (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association v. Halecki, 1959, 358 U.S. 613, 616-617 , 79 S.Ct. 517 , 3 L.Ed.2d 541 ; see Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 1922, 259 U.S. 255, 259 , 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 .
examined Cited "see" Delome v. Union Barge Line Co. (3×)
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association v. Halecki, 1959, 358 U.S. 613, 616-617 , 79 S.Ct. 517 , 3 L.Ed.2d 541 ; see Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 1922, 259 U.S. 255, 259 , 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 .
examined Cited "see" Close v. Calmar Steamship Corp. (3×)
E.D. Pa. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259 , 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 (1922), Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 243-244 , 63 S.Ct. 246 , 87 L.Ed. 239 (1942). .
examined Cited "see" Ideal Cement Co. v. Home Ins. (3×)
S.D. Ala. · 1953 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 1922, 259 U.S. 255, 259 , 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 ; Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 1918, 247 U.S. 372, 384 , 38 S.Ct. 501 , 62 L.Ed. 1171 ; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 1942, 317 U.S. 239, 243-245 , 63 S.Ct. 246 , 87 L.Ed. 239 . .
examined Cited "see" Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co (3×)
5th Cir. · 1953 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259 , 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 ; Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 384 , 38 S.Ct. 501 , 62 L.Ed. 1171 .
examined Cited "see" Frame v. City of New York (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1940 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259 , 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 .
discussed Cited "see" Nolan v. General Seafoods Corporation (2×)
1st Cir. · 1940 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255 , 12 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 ; Engel v. Davenport, 271 U.S. 33, 36 , 46 S.Ct. 410 , 70 L.Ed. 813 ; Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc., 287 U.S. 367, 371 , 53 S.Ct. 173 , 77 L.Ed. 368 ; The H.
examined Cited "see" Rosinski v. Conners (3×)
W.D.N.Y. · 1927 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255 , 42 S. Ct. 475 , 66 L.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine and Trading Inc. (3×)
2d Cir. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See e.g., Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259, 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 (1922); see also Force, supra, at 19. 13 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Owner of M/v Reddy Kilowatt v. Patricia Abel, D/B/A New Richmond Boating Center (3×)
6th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 260 , 42 S.Ct. 475, 477 , 66 L.Ed. 927, 930 (1922).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Yates v. Dann (3×)
D. Del. · 1958 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255 , 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 ; United States Gypsum Co. v. Conners Marine Co., Inc., D.C., 33 F.Supp. 59 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." McGhee v. United States (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1947 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255 -259, 42 S.Ct. 475 , 66 L.Ed. 927 ; Patton-Tully Trans.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Beadle v. Spencer
SCOTUS · 1936 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255 ; Olson v. Flavel, 34 Fed. 477 . ■ 2.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carlisle Packing Company
v.
Sandanger
195.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 29, 1922.
259 U.S. 255
1922 U.S. LEXIS 2479
Mr. J. Harry Covington, with whom Mr. James A. Kerr Mr. Evan S. McCord and Mr. Joseph N. Ivey were on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Maurice McMicken, for respondent, submitted.
McReynolds, Clarke.
Cited by 189 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion Of the court.

The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed a judgment against petitioner Packing Company rendered by the trial court upon a verdict for damages on account of injuries which respondent suffered while employed upon petitioner’s motor boat afloat in navigable Alaskan waters.

Respondent claimed that, prior to the departure of the boat upon a trip intended to occupy perhaps six or eight hours, petitioner or its agents negligently filled with gasoline and placed thereon a can which ordinarily contained coal oil (and was so labelled) for use according to the prevailing custom in those waters to start fires in the small stove where meals Vere cooked and water 'heated. Without knowledge of the substitution, respondent poured the gasoline upon the fire wood, applied a match, an explosion resulted and he was \badly burned. He further[*258] claimed that no life preservers had been placed on board and that his injuries were aggravated by delay attending search for one before he jumped into the water to extinguish his flaming clothes.

The trial court held “ the basis of the action is negligence,” and instructed the jury according to the common-law rules in respect thereto. It said that if petitioner or its authorized agents negligently filled the can with gasoline and placed it upon the boat, and if by reason of such negligence respondent suffered injury, he was entitled to recovér compensatory damages therefor, provided he himself had not been guilty of contributory negligence. Further, that if the injuries resulting directly from the explosion were aggravated because no life preservers had been placed on board, then additional compensation could be awarded for such aggravation. Also that if the explosion occurred without petitioner’s negligence but the absence of life preservers caused aggravation óf respondent’s injuries,'he would be entitled to recover for such injuries as resulted directly from the negligence in respect of the life preservers but not for those caused solely by the explosion.

We have heretofore announced the general doctrine concerning rights and liabilities of the. parties when one of a crew sustains injuries while on a vessel in navigable waters.

“ The vessel and her owners are liable, in case a seaman falls sick, or is wounded, in the service of the ship, to the extent of his maintenance and cure, and to his wages, at least so long as the voyage is continued.

“ The vessel and her owner are, both by English and American law, liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship.

“All the members of the crew, except perhaps the master, are, as between themselves, fellow servants, and hence[*259] seamen cannot recover for injuries sustained through the negligence of another member of the crew beyond the expense of their maintenance and cure.

“The seaman is not allowed to recover an indemnity for the negligence of the master, or any member of the crew, but is entitled to maintenance and cure, whether the injuries were received by negligence or accident.” The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175; Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U. S. 372, 380, 381.

The general rules of the maritime law apply whether the proceeding be instituted in an admiralty or common-law court. Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., supra; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 159.

Here the trial court did not instruct the jury in consonance with these rules, and by failing so to do, fell into error.

But mere error without more is not enough to upset the judgment, if the record discloses that no injury could have. resulted therefrom. West v. Camden, 135 U. S. 507, 521.

Considering the custom prevailing in those waters and other clearly established facts, in the present cause, we think the trial court might have told the jury that without regard to negligence the vessel was unseaworthy when she left the dock if the can marked “ coal oil ” contained gasoline; also'that she was unseaworthy if no life preservers were then on board; and that if thus unseaworthy and one of the crew received damage as the direct result thereof, he was entitled to recover compensatory damages. The Silvia, 171 U. S. 462, 464; The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 8. The verdict shows that the jury found gasoline had been negligently placed in the can or that through negligence no life preservers were put on board, or that both of these defaults existed, and that as a result of one or both respondent suffered injury without contributory negligence on his part. In effect the charge was more favorable to the petitioner than it could have de[*260] manded, and we think no damage could have resulted from the erroneous theory adopted by the trial court. The Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124, 131; Thompson Towing & Wrecking Association v. McGregor, 207 Fed. 209, 211.

Petitioner asked an instruction that § 4283 of the Revised Statutes [1] applied, and that under it the verdict could not exceed the value of the vessel. In a state court, when there is only one possible claimant and one owner, the advantage of this section may be obtained by proper pleading. The Lotta, 150 Fed. 219, 222; Delaware River Ferry Co. v. Amos, 179 Fed. 756. Here the privilege was not set up or claimed in the answer, and it could not be first presented upon request for a charge to the jury.

The judgment below must be

Affirmed.

Me. Justice Clarke concurs in the result.
1

Sec. 4283. The liability of the owner of any vessel, for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction, by any person, of any property, goods, or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, lost, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity, or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed. the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending.