at the time of the accident is conflicting. The chief officer testified that the weather was not bad, that the ship did not roll much, and that he did not think the sea was so rough that it was dangerous for passengers to be on deck. He said the spray came on deck, but no wave came over. He testified, further, that there was a standing order given that the passengers were not to go up on deck when it was in any way rough, because it was dangerous. The head steward testified that he saw the libelants pass his room, intention of picking it up on the return trip. Aft of the bitt and chock there was a narrow passage, tapering alongside the house to the stern where a row of passengers were sitting on camp stools; the farthest of them being the two persons who were injured. They, seeing on the deck beyond the mate and the two deck hands, several relatives, arose to join them through the narrow passageway. The mate twice called out to them to stop, but they either did not hear or did not understand. One stepped upon the line which was running out through the chock and fell forward, while the other, in an effort to help her, stepped into a bight in the line, was pulled forward against the bitt, and sustained severe injuries to her left ankle. A proceeding in admiralty having been instituted, there was an appeal from a decree holding the boat liable for the injuries. The court reversed the decree, stating: "The presence of the mate and two deck hands to handle the line was a sufficient precaution against danger from its fouling with the pile. The mate had no reason to expect that passengers would try to force their way through this narrow place, not more than 5 feet wide at the widest part, where the crew was at work preparatory to the departure of the boat. When he saw them coming, his twice repeated warning was sufficient to stop persons of ordinary prudence. If they had done so, no accident would have happened. We think the claimants, on the facts * * found, were injured because of their own recklessness." In re Keansburg Steamboat Co., 161 C. C. A. 430, 249 Fed. 472 (1918). B. Hawser pulled across foot. The libelant alleged that while she was sitting with others on the main deck of the vessel where passengers were allowed to be, certain employees called to them to move inside the cabin; that while obeying this order and before she had an opportunity to get safely within the cabin, one of the deck hands suddenly pulled a hawser, which was lying upon the deck, across the foot of the libelant, throwing her to the deck and causing a fracture of the thigh bone of her right leg. The respondent contended that the libelant stumbled and fell, causing the injury in question, without any act done by an employee for which the ship was responsible. On that issue proofs were taken by both sides, and, after hearing, the trial judge held that the injury was caused by the negligence of the deck hand in moving the hawser while the libelant was moving, in pursuance of orders, into the cabin. From a decree awarding her damages, an appeal was taken. The court affirmed the decree, holding that the issues of fact were properly found. The Columbia, 134 C. C. A. 392, 218 Fed. 634 (1914). C. Hand caught in hawse hole. As the vessel upon which the libelant, a boy 9 years old, and his mother, going in the direction of the upper deck, just before the accident, and he warned them then that they must not go up. He said to them: "It is rough, and the spray is coming over the deck," "and that the sea was rough, and not to go up on deck"; "that it was dangerous, and for that reason not to go up on deck." steward told him to tell the pas and in failing to take precautions against such a contingency, there is no liability on the part of the respondent. Upon this question I am of opinion that the contingency was too remote to impose the duty of guarding against it, and therefore that the respondent's negligence has not been established." Hohn International Mercantile Marine Co., 180 Fed. 495 (1910). V. He subsequently modified his testimony to the effect that he did not say to the libelants that it was dangerous, but that he said it was dark, and the spray would come on deck, and that they would get wet. A steerage boy testified that the were passengers, approached the dock, a number of passengers crowded to the rail, and in the press and confusion, the plaintiff became separated from his mother and, in some way not definitely explained, placed his left hand in a hawse hole through which a heavy cable was passing. The cable reached from the ship to a tug, and as it moved or tightened three of the boy's fingers were crushed against the rim of the hole. The evidence showed that one of the crew had been at the hole assisting with the cable and in keeping the passengers away from the place, but when the accident happened he had apparently gone away and the passengers had crowded against the rail, pushing the boy with them. A suit in admiralty having been instituted, there was judgment for the defendant and a decree dismissing the libel, the court holding that the hawser was not improperly put into service; that the work of getting the ship to the dock was being carefully carried on; and that the mere tightening of the cable was not itself a negligent act. As the court further pointed out: "Unless * there was neg ligence in failing to anticipate that small children, incapable of observing and understanding the danger presented by the rope and the hole in combination, might be in the neighborhood without a caretaker-for ordinarily there was no peril in the situation, and adults might properly be expected to look out for themselves and for those in their immediate charge VIII. Cutting hand in fall against skylight. The libelant was seated in a chair near a ventilating hatchway which was covered by an A-shaped glass roof or skylight, when a somewhat larger wave than usual washed over the decks. In attempting to get out of the way of the wave, the libelant stepped upon a shelf or bench, running alongside this skylight, and rested his weight upon the glass of the skylight. This glass, which was ordinarily thick window glass, with woven wire imbedded therein, broke, and cut quite severely the libelant's left hand, producing some permanent injury and disfigurement. Over the four panes of glass in each skylight there was supposed to rest a square frame with a middle bar equipped with 11 cross rods about the size of a lead pencil, but far enough apart to permit the insertion of a person's hand. The libelant contended that the frame over the glass causing the injury was missing, but it appeared, on the whole evidence, sengers that the weather was bad, and it would be dangerous for the passengers to go up on deck, and he says he so told the libelants. The libelants testified that they were not warned not to go on deck, and they were not told it was dangerous. A female companion, who was with the libelants, and who went up on deck with them and was struck down at the same time, testified that she heard no warning that it was unsafe or dangerous to go on deck. A steerage passenger, who was on deck and saw the libelants struck down, testified that * * that the steward, a short time before the accident had placed each of the various frames in its proper position, and that the first of the two attempts of the libelant to climb upon the skylight had pulled the frame in question from its position. The court dismissed the libel, saying: "It would seem that if the libelant, in order to avoid the discomfort of a wetting, attempted to climb upon the skylight, and thereby pulled the protecting frame from the glass, and then leaned upon the glass, no liability should rest upon the vessel. The skylight was not intended as a place upon which to sit, nor to climb, and the frame was designed to protect the glass from objects of any sort which might fall thereon. It cannot be considered negligence to have not anticipated that this frame could be pulled from its place by a man of ordinary size, when tossed around by the motion of the ship, or slipping back under the effect of an extraordinary wave. Such an occurrence is an accident pure and simple." The Caracas, 163 Fed. 662 (1908). IX. Tripping over chain box. Libelant, while a passenger on a vessel of the defendant, fell over a chain box extending on both sides of the promenade deck from the deck house to the rail, breaking both bones of one leg and dislocating her ankle. At the time of the accident she was 64 years old and in neurasthenic condi tion. The suffering was greatly increased due to the fact that it was impossible to set the bones without anæsthetics and the operation could not be performed until the arrival of the boat at its destination. This delay, and the age, and condition of the patient produced delayed convalescence and, according to the uncontradicted evidence, permanent disability. It appeared that the libulant had come on board in daylight and in going to her room must have passed by the chain box over which she fell, as it was 10cated only a few feet from her stateroom. She then went to the other side of the deck and there spent the rest of the afternoon, apparently not noticing the corresponding chain box on that side of the vessel, though sitting for hours within a few feet of it. After sunset, but while there was still sufficient light to make everything plainly visible, she crossed to the opposite side of the vessel, stumbled over the chain box in question, and so sustained the injuries above mentioned. From a decree for the defendant, the libelant appealed. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the injury was caused by the negligence of the libelant in failing to observe the structure over which she fell, as the same was apparent and, being extremely common on vessels, was properly used in the construction of the ship in question. Savage v. New York & H. S. S. Co., 107 C. C. A. 648, 185 Fed. 778 (1911). the weather was bad and the waves were rough; but he heard no warning that it was dangerous to be on deck. Two other passengers testified that they heard no warning that it was dangerous to go on deck, although they appear to have been situated so as to have heard it, had such a warning been given. The court below found as facts, from this testimony, that the sea was rough and the weather was bad; that it was in fact dangerous for passengers to be on the steerage deck; that the officers and crew X. Fall on stairway between decks. The plaintiff alleged in her petition that the stairway, which descended from the hurricane deck to the main deck, upon the steps of which she slipped and fell, sustaining the injuries in suit was "located for the purpose of affording methods of ascent and descent between said floors or decks for passengers on said vessel." In an amendment to the petition it was alleged that "passengers were permitted to use said steps by the defendant. Said steps were generally and commonly used by passengers." From a judgment of nonsuit, the plaintiff brought error. The court affirmed the judg ment, holding that the proof did not sustain the allegations. Kennedy v. Ocean S. S. Co. of Savannah, 21 Ga. App. 427, 94 S. E. 583 (1917). XI. Slipping or tripping over loose mat. A. Lurch of ship contributing to fall. When the libelant, a second-class passenger on one of the defendant's vessels stepped upon a mat at the head of the stairway in going from the upper deck to the dining room, the mat slipped, causing her to fall heavily, fracturing and spraining her left ankle. It appeared that the mat did not properly fit the place in which it was used, but was too small both in length and width. The respondent alleged the seaworthy condition of the steamer, and that the libelant in step ping over the doorsill at the entrance to the stairway made too long a step, losing her balance and twisting her foot, owing to the rolling and pitching of the steamer in a heavy sea. From a decree for the libelant, the defendant appealed. The court affirmed the judgment holding that there was nothing in the evidence to show that the weather was extraordinary, and that the allegations of the respondent were not supported by the testimony. Mohns v. Netherlands-American Steam Nav. Co., 104 C. C. A. 551, 182 Fed. 323 (1910). The plaintiff was not satisfied with the accommodations given to her dog, for which she had paid passage, and complained to the captain regarding it. In reply he requested her to follow him, saying that he would show her where the dog could be cared for. They proceeded down two companionways to the main deck, the captain leading the way. After inspecting the dog's quarters they started to return and had reached a broad passageway extending to a tide door which was closed and bolted, when the ship took a sudden lurch throwing the plaintiff against the bolts and projections of the door, and causing the injuries complained of. There were no railings on either side of this passageway and the plaintiff testified that there was a loose mat, or jute runner, which slipped when the lurch came and threw her off her feet. From a judgment upon the verdict of a jury for $15,056.33 in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant were negligent in not so warning the passengers, and in allowing them to go on deck. The weight of testimony supports this finding, and we find no reason for rejecting it. The claimant contends that the accident happened by reason of the libelant slipping and falling upon the deck, which was wet from flying spray and rain, and was an ordinary and usual risk of travel at sea, which libelants assumed. This contention is in conflict with the claim that the deck was dangerous and that the libelants were so warned; brought error. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that there was evidence to sustain the finding of the jury that the defendant was negligent through its agent, the captain of the vessel, in inviting the plaintiff to go during a storm of extreme violence to a part of the vessel where there were no railings and where the mat or runner was loose on the floor. As the court also pointed out, the plaintiff was not to be considered as contributorily negligent in following the instructions of one who presumably knew where it was safe to go about the vessel under the circumstances then existing. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique v. Bump, 148 C. C. A. 68, 234 Fed. 52 (1916). B. Inadequate light contributing to fall. The libelant, an infant about 4 years of age, was returning with her mother, two other children and two nurses from their summer home when injured on the claimant's vessel. At the time of the accident, in the early evening, the mother was sitting upon a stool near an entrance to the cabin looking towards the shore for her husband. The libelant had been with her nurse and started to go to the mother, but stumbled over a mat at the exit from a passageway leading from the saloon to the promenade deck, and received a severe cut above the left eye, which laid open the skin as far as its depth would permit. The claimant of the vessel contended that the accident happened through the child being left unattended and stumbling over the coconut mat at one of the doors, the lights of the vessel being on at the time. The court found that the lights were not burning; that the place of the accident was not properly illuminated; and that such negligence was the cause of the accident. The court also pointed out that it was not neg ligent to allow the child to go from the mother to her nurse and back again. The injury leaving no permanent effects, a decree of $600 in damages for pain and suffering was allowed. The North Star, 169 Fed. 711 (1909). XII. Falling into openings. A. Tilting of hatch cover. The libelant was a member of a gang of carpenters employed on a ship of the company owning the libeled tug to fit up some cattle pens, and as the work was not completed when her sailing time came, they remained on the steamer at work until she was some distance down the bay. The tug in question accompanied the vessel and took the men off when the work upon which they were engaged was completed. The libelant remained on the deck with the others and seated himself in the stern not far from a hatch. In attempting to go ashore, he crossed over the hatch, which was partly concealed by its cover. He placed his |