Everett C. Webb v. Dresser Industries
1976 A.M.C. 2671, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7717, 536 F.2d 603 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A shipowner's absolute duty to furnish a seaworthy vessel extends to providing seamen with necessary equipment, such as proper footwear, to safely perform foreseeable tasks assigned to them ashore, especially under known hazardous conditions.
Facts:
- Everett C. Webb was a crew member on the M/V CANADIAN OLYMPIC, a vessel owned by Dresser Industries, which was docked in Seward, Alaska during the winter.
- Significant snow and ice had accumulated in Seward, making walking conditions hazardous.
- David Colten, the vessel's party-chief, ordered Webb to go ashore to pick up ship supplies from the local bus station.
- Webb was wearing smooth-soled boots suitable for tropical climates, which were inadequate for the icy conditions.
- Webb testified that he had previously requested proper boots from Colten on three occasions, but received a noncommittal response.
- While supervising the loading of the supplies at the bus station, Webb slipped on the snow and ice, sustaining injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Everett C. Webb sued Dresser Industries in federal district court, bringing claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law for negligence and unseaworthiness.
- The case was tried in a bench trial (by a judge without a jury).
- The district court found in favor of Webb, ruling that Dresser Industries was negligent and the vessel was unseaworthy.
- The trial court awarded Webb $40,000 in damages.
- Dresser Industries, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 shipowner's failure to provide a seaman with proper footwear for a required, foreseeable shore excursion in hazardous icy and snowy conditions render the vessel unseaworthy?
Opinions:
Majority - Goldberg, Circuit Judge
Yes. The failure to provide the seaman with proper footwear for a foreseeable and required task ashore under hazardous conditions rendered the vessel unseaworthy. The shipowner's absolute and non-delegable duty to furnish a vessel reasonably fit for its intended purpose includes providing necessary appliances and gear. Applying the test from Walker v. Harris, the court found that moving provisions from shore to ship was an integral part of the vessel's function in Alaska. The owner's agent knew of the hazardous ice and snow conditions ashore and could have anticipated that special boots were necessary for the crew to perform their errands safely. The court rejected the argument that custom dictates the standard of care, stating that the determination of reasonable fitness is not limited by industry practice. Therefore, the vessel was unseaworthy because it lacked the proper equipment for a seaman to safely carry out his assigned duties.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the doctrine of seaworthiness is not strictly confined to the physical vessel itself but extends to the equipment necessary for seamen to perform their duties safely, even when those duties are ashore. It establishes a precedent that shipowners must account for the foreseeable environmental conditions of the ports their vessels visit and equip their crew accordingly for assigned tasks. The ruling reinforces the principle that industry custom is not a defense to an unseaworthiness claim, underscoring the absolute nature of the shipowner's duty. Future cases will likely use this precedent to hold owners liable for failing to provide specific safety gear for a wide range of on-shore activities conducted in the service of the ship.
Unlock the full brief for Everett C. Webb v. Dresser Industries