PETEBSON V. THE CHAND03. 649 �its breaking, or observation as to its then condition, I tliirik he was guilty of negligence. The libellant assumed the ordi- nary risks of his employment, and the liability of the crane line to part appears to be one of them. �The negligence of the libellant was the proximate, if not the sole, cause of the injury; and, therefore, he cannot recover for the damage resulting from it. 2 Thompson on Negli- gence, 1148; Bowas v. Pioneer Tow Line. �But the libellant also claims that the crane line was insuf- ficient when put up, a few days before, by the express direc- tion of the mate, being only a piece of old rotten manilla gasket ; that he went upon the crane line to cast ofif the stop by the special order oif the second mate, and that it was cus- tomary on the vessel, in giving an order to cast off this stop, to say: "Go aloft, and get on that crane line and cast off the stop on the top-gallant halliards." But, in my judgment, the evidence fails to establish either of these allegations; and, if it did, the libellant would not thereby be relieved from the obligation to exercise ordinary care and prudence in going on Buch line, or casting off such stop. �Admitting however, the alleged negligence of the mate, and that the master or owner and the vessel are liable therefor, still, if the negligence of the libellant substantially contributed to produce the injury, he could not recover damage therefor. In this view of the matter it is unneccessary to consider whether the mate was a fellow servant of the libellant, within the general rule which exempts a master from responsibility for injuries to those in his employ resulting from the negli- gence of a fellow servant employed in the same general busi- ness. �In Halverson v. Nison, 3 Saw. 562, t'ie libellant, while at work upon a triangle, fell to the deck, by reason of the negli- gence of the nate in rigging the same, and. was seriously injured. Mr. Justice Hôffman, upon the strength of the authorities, but with apparent reluctance, held that the own- ners of the vessel were not responsible for the injury. �But the mate boing the immediate agent and representa,- tive of the master, — his vefy right hand, as it were, — acting ����
