Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/548

 536 FEDERAL REPORXBS. �respondents are the proprietors of a coal wharf in East Bos- ton. On the twenty-eighth of November, 1878, the schooner arrived at this port, having on board a cargo of coal consigned to the respondents. On the following day she entered the dock, but before reaching her discharging berth at the wharf she grounded. At thenext tide, in the night-time, a further attempt was made to haul her to her berth, but failed. The next day, at high water, the attempt was renewed, and this time with success. She was then placed in her discharging berth and her cargo discharged. During these proceedings the schooner sustained injury from being strained and hogged, and the question in the case is whether the respondents, as owners of the dock, are responsible for the damage, and to what extent. �It was the expectation of the parties that the schooner was to enter the dock at high water, and was to take the ground to0 the tide receded. It is usual for coal vessels to take the ground at low water when discharging at the coal wharves in Boston. �The rule of law applicable to this case is well settled, and is not in dispute, The last case upon the subject is Nicker- 8on V. Tirrell, 127 Mass. 236, and the rule is thus stated by Morton, J. : "The owner or occupant of a dock is liable in damages to a person who, by bis invitation, express or im- plied, makes use of it, for an injury caused by aiiy defect or unsafe condition of the dock which the occupant negligently causes or permits to exist, if sueh person was himself in the exercise of due care. Suoh occupant is not an insurer of the safety of his dock, but he is required to use reasonable care to keep his dock in such a state as to be reasonably safe for use by vessels which he invites to enter it, or for which he holds it out as fit and ready. If he fails to use such due care — if there is a defect which is known to him, or which, by the use of ordinary care or diligence, should be known to him — he is guilty of negligence, and liable to the person who, using due care, is injured thereby." I adopt this as a fuU and accurate statement of the law of this case. �Upon a careful review of ail the evidence in the case I ��� �