Nature of Cause
This is a libel in personam and in rem with foreign attachment for damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by libelant as a result of the alleged unseaworthiness of the MY Belgrano (“vessel”) and the negligence of the respondents.
The respondents impleaded Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Company (“stevedore”) as third-party respondent under Admiralty Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. in a cause of indemnity.
The libelant at the time of the accident involved was a longshoreman employee of stevedore then under contract to bring aboard and stow the vessel with cargo, including lumber. The question of the claim of respondents for indemnity from stevedore has been segregated and reserved until adjudication of libelant’s claim.
The segregated issue of liability to libelant and his damage has been submitted to the Court following a trial by the Court and the filing of brief.
Pertinent Undisputed Facts On or about October 10, 1958, the vessel was lying adjacent to the dock at Terminal No. 1 on the Willamette River in the Port of Portland, Portland, Oregon, and longshoremen unemployed by the stevedore were immediately engaged in moving (topping) the starboard boom at No. 1 hatch in order to bring aboard lumber cargo from the dock when the boom and its rigging fell and struck the libelant, who was working on the dock as a fellow longshoreman, causing him personal injuries.
This Court has admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this cause in rem of the vessel and in personam of the named parties.
Court’s Findings of Fact as to Liability This Court finds that:
Libelant was struck with the falling boom while he was engaged in his duties as a dockworking longshoreman and particularly operating a tractor in reverse motion and pulling with a tow line a railroad car, then loaded with some of the lumber cargo, upon a permanently fixed railroad spur line on the dock along shipside. The purpose was to place the lumber-laden railroad car under and within the reach of the vessel's gear so as to load the lumber upon the vessel.1 (Figure 1.)
*105FIGURE 1
The falling boom struck the libelant without any notice or warning to him.
The vessel was of German design, newly-built, and engaged as a freighter, and she appeared clean.
The vessel’s starboard boom at her No. 1 hatch had been and was at the time of the accident fitted, among other things, with a topping lift winch drum (“lift gear”) of German design. This gear was a permanently affixed appurtenance of the vessel and, unlike the common American style of chain and shackle fastening topping gear, was semi-automatic in operation.2 (Figure 2.)
FIGURE 2
The larger wire rope wound on the left portion of the drum on the lift gear and! extending upwards between the words', “notches” and “pawl” extends on upwards and through a block on the mast and is made fast near the top of the boom involved. The lift gear is stationed just abaft of the starboard winch at No. 1 hatch.3 (Figure 3.)
FIGURE 3
The smaller steel rope wound on the right portion of the drum has been referred to as “topping lift pennant” and “pigtail line” (“pigtail line”), and the unwound portion thereof lies free on the deck when not in use. The free end of the pigtail line is equipped with a “hook,” a “dog” or a “pawl” (“dog”).4 (Figure 4.) The “nigger head” or “gypsy head” (“gypsy head”) on the winch has a hole or cutting through its outside rim.5 (Figure 5.) To operate the boom lift *106gear the dog is inserted in the hole in the rim of the gypsy head.6 (Figure 6.) This pigtail line dog with the cutting in the rim of the gypsy head is also of German concept and design and, when the dog is properly inserted and locked by a twist in the gypsy head opening7 (Figure 7.), the pigtail line is made fast to the gypsy head and cannot be separated by direct pull of the winch unless there is a failure of the metals. When the lift gear is operating normally, the strain of the winch causes an unwinding of the pigtail line and causes a reverse winding of the boom topping wire rope upon the drum and a lifting of the boom. Slack upon the pigtail line will cause an unwinding of the topping wire rope by the weight of the boom, a lowering thereof, and a winding of the pigtail line upon the drum. The drum of the lift gear has as an integral part thereof, at each end, a permanently fixed circular ratchet or pawl rim or wheel made of cast metal provided with a series of cammed ratchets on which permanently attached *107but free rising and falling pawls ride and rise and drop into the intervening notches by gravity. These two pawls are rigidly connected together with an iron bar and operate on a single axle. When one pawl is up so is the other, and vice versa. When the lift gear in the boom-lifting operation functions correctly according to intent and design, the pawls freely ride and rise upon the cammed ratchets and drop automatically by gravity into the notches, thus forming a locking device to prevent the drum from turning back under the weight of the boom following an intentional slack or an unexpected failure of the pigtail line. When the gear is used to lower the boom, it is necessary for a longeshoreman to manually hold or otherwise prevent the pawls from falling by gravity into the notches. The action of a longshoreman in lowering or letting the pawls fall into the notches will lock the drum and prevent the continued lowering of the boom or a falling of the boom upon a sudden parting or failure of the pigtail line.
*107The intent and design of the lift gear is an improvement upon the mentioned American gear and is a safe and is in nowise an inherently dangerous appurtenance when functioning properly. There would be a malfunction of the gear according to design and intent if the pawls did not freely ride and rise and drop by gravity or in anywise fail to drop freely by gravity when released from a manual holding.
Immediately prior to the commencement of the operation leading up to the accident, the ratchet notches and the pawls were in a locked position and the lift gear was steady under the weight of the boom. The work of bringing aboard the lumber at No. 1 hatch required a topping of the boom in order to place the same in a working position, and the winch driver called to a ship longshoreman and asked for “a hand” in attaching the free end of the pigtail line to the gypsy head. The winch operator did not see this operation, and the longshoreman involved can give no satisfactory account of what he did in the way of fixing the free end of the pigtail line to the gypsy head. In any event, it was somehow attached, but evidently not properly. The winch driver took up the slack in the pigtail line, put strain thereon, and commenced the lifting of the boom. The winch driver did not hear the “clanking” of the pawls (dropping of the pawls in the notches in the ratchet rims). After raising the boom approximately three-four feet, the driver stopped the winch, braked it, and started astern to see what was wrong. Under the weight of the boom, the pigtail line started to slip on the gypsy head and the boom lift wire rope on the drum of the lift gear started to unwind. • The boom in its fall gathered momentum, and the flailing free end of the pigtail line prevented the winch driver from manually putting stress upon the same. The boom, uncontrolled, fell to the starboard side of the vessel across the dock and struck the libelant. From the commencement of the raising of the boom, the unwinding of the drum, and throughout the fall of the boom, the pawls had failed to fall into the notches by gravity or otherwise.8
On the day before the accident, while in the process of topping the boom involved through the use of the lift gear, the pawls had locked in an upright position and failed to properly function by falling under gravity into the locking position, and a longshoreman had used a piece of dunnage to strike and knock the pawls into position.
Court’s Conclusions of Law as to Unseaworthiness and Negligence
That there was a malfunction in the intent and design and of the lift *108gear during the operation of the lifting of the boom in that the pawls failed to freely ride the cammed ratchets and drop freely into the notches is self-evident. Otherwise, there would have been a maximum drop of the boom to the extent of some seven inches or a destruction of the locking device of notch and pawl, which there was not. Therefore, the Court concludes :
(1) That the said vessel was unsea-worthy in that:
“3. That (pawls) on the ratchet in the topping lift gear was (were) defective and inadequate in that it (they) did not drop into each cog as the boom was hoisted so as to prevent the boom from falling.” 9
(2) That the respondents and the claimant were negligent in:
“4. Failing to properly inspect said vessel and particularly the said ratchet and (pawl) device to said hatch to determine the defective nature of same * * * ” (Reasonable inspection would have disclosed the malfunctioning of the pawls, known to the longshoreman the day before.)
“5. Failing to provide (the) libelant with a safe place to work * * * ”
(3) That said unseaworthiness of the vessel and concurring negligence of the respondents and claimant were the proximate causes of the falling of the boom 10 and libelant’s resulting injuries.
*109Court’s Conclusions as to Liability to Libelant
The Court concludes that the libelant at the time of the accident was engaged in performing a part of the ship’s service as a longshoreman in the process of loading and stowing her cargo. Particularly he was engaged in moving or bringing this lumber cargo from its last place of rest following handling by others to a position on the dock shipside in order to be reached by the ship’s gear and tackle. In the language of Circuit Judge Hamlin of the Ninth Circuit:
“The appellee’s (libelant’s) work was the work of a longshoreman and he was entitled to seaworthy gear while he was performing his services.” Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Cordray, 9 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 214, 218.
And, this “duty of providing a seaworthy ship and gear at the time of this accident extended to the (libelant), whether or not (libelant) was on board the ship or on the dock.”
That in the Cordray case the appellee was a foreman of dock longshoremen and he had the duty of coordinating the activities of the dock-working longshoremen and the ship-working longshoremen in the unloading of the vessel. Surely there can be no distinction between a (1) *110(Cordray) dock-working longshoreman moving cargo from the reach of the ship’s tackle “to its first place of rest” on shore (258 F.2d 214, 215) during the discharge of cargo; and (2) (instant case) a dock-working longshoreman bringing cargo from its last place of rest on shore within the reach of the ship’s tackle during the loading of cargo. Both dock-working longshoremen stand in a like degree of relationship to the fellow ship-working longshoremen. Reason dictates they respectively are engaged in the work of the service and business of the vessel, which is the ultimate test.11
Therefore, the vessel is liable to the libelant for her unseaworthiness, which concurred with the negligence of the respondents and claimant in causing libel-ant’s injuries.
Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as to Libelant’s Injuries and Damages
The Court finds that:
The libelant at the time of the accident was an able-bodied man of 58 years, physically able to perform the regular and normal duties required of him in his position of a tractor-driving dock-working longshoreman.
As a result of being struck by the boom, libelant suffered nervous shock, physical and mental pain and suffering, a brain concussion and a skull fracture, causing complete unconsciousness of several hours’ duration, broken hip, a memory loss of temporary duration, severe lacerations and contusions, a severe tearing, twisting and wrenching of the muscles, tendons, ligaments and soft tissues of his limbs and body and soft tissues of his head. As a result of said injuries the libelant was temporarily totally disabled and impaired from performing any work or labor from the date of the accident until the month of June-July, 1959, at which time his medical doctor advised him to return to work, or for a reasonably ascertained period of nine calendar months. Thereafter, until the date of trial on February 23, 1960, or for a period reasonably determinable as seven and one-third calendar months, li-belant was partially totally disabled from performing any work for gain. Some of said injuries have caused a permanent partial loss of the body functions in the region of the neck and shoulders and have permanently but partially impaired libelant’s ability to work in his prior occupation. The libelant has no education or occupational training which would enable him to engage in work other than that in the allied fields of a longshoreman.
The libelant’s wages from and after the date of the accident until the time of trial could have been reasonably expected to average the sum of $573.39 per calendar month. The libelant has, since the date of the accident until the date of trial, on account of his injuries, incurred reasonable and necessary doctor, hospital and medical expenses in the amount of $1,032.55.
Therefore, the libelant is entitled to recover as lost wages during this period of total and partial disability to work, the sum of $7,675 and is further entitled to recover the sum of $1,032.55 medical expenses, and as general damages the sum of $32,500.
Proctor for the libelant is requested to submit appropriate form of decree and judgment, adopting as a part thereof and as the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law the foregoing.