Dempsey v. Addison Crane Co.
247 F. Supp. 584 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Compliance with a common industry custom or practice is not a conclusive defense against a claim of negligence. A defendant may be found negligent for following an industry custom if the custom itself is unsafe and a safer, reasonably available alternative exists.
Facts:
- William T. Dempsey, a pile driver, was working on a construction project where his employer rented a crane from Addison Crane Company, Inc.
- The crane operator was using the crane's boom to move a welding machine.
- An auxiliary jib, not in use at the time, was suspended from the boom by two slings.
- Each sling consisted of a cable with an open metal hook at each end, which was a common apparatus used in the industry.
- While the welding machine was being lowered, one of the open hooks on the upper sling slipped from its connection.
- The sudden increase in load caused the lower sling to break, allowing the 30-foot-long jib to fall.
- The falling jib struck and seriously injured Dempsey, who was steadying the welding machine below.
- A safer alternative for securing the jib, using closed shackles instead of open hooks, was known and its components were readily available at the time.
Procedural Posture:
- William T. Dempsey and Anna M. Dempsey sued Addison Crane Company, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for personal injuries and loss of consortium.
- The case was tried without a jury.
- The court separated the trial into two parts, first deciding the issue of liability before proceeding to the issue of damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's compliance with a common industry custom absolve it of liability for negligence if that custom is itself unsafe and a safer alternative is reasonably available?
Opinions:
Majority - District Judge Holtzoff
No. A defendant's compliance with industry custom does not absolve it of liability if the standard of reasonable prudence dictates a higher degree of care. The court found that the means used to attach the jib to the boom—the open hook apparatus—was unsafe. Expert testimony established that a safer alternative using closed shackles was available and would have prevented the accident. The court reasoned that while industry custom is admissible as evidence of the standard of care, it is not determinative. Citing precedents like The T. J. Hooper, the court held that the standard of care is what is reasonably prudent, not necessarily what is common practice, as an entire industry may have 'unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices.' Therefore, Addison Crane Company's use of the unsafe, albeit common, open-hook system constituted negligence that was the proximate cause of Dempsey's injuries.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the principle, famously articulated in The T. J. Hooper, that industry custom is not the definitive measure of the standard of care in negligence law. The decision prevents an entire industry from insulating itself from liability by collectively adhering to unsafe, outdated practices. It establishes that the legal standard of 'reasonable prudence' can require actors to adopt safer technologies or methods even before they become widespread. This precedent has a significant impact on tort litigation, empowering plaintiffs to challenge industry-wide norms as negligent and compelling industries to proactively evaluate and implement available safety improvements.
Unlock the full brief for Dempsey v. Addison Crane Co.