Ford v. Trident Fisheries Co.
122 N.E. 389 (1919)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable for negligence for an employee's injury caused by an obvious workplace condition that existed at the start of employment. Furthermore, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's alleged negligence was the actual and proximate cause of the injury.
Facts:
- Jerome Ford was employed as a mate on the defendant's steam trawler, the Long Island, for approximately two months.
- During his employment, a flight of four steps leading from the vessel's deck to the pilot house had no guard or railing.
- This condition of the stairs remained unchanged throughout Ford's time working on the boat.
- On December 21, 1916, while at sea, Ford was ascending these steps.
- The vessel rolled, causing Ford to be thrown overboard into the water.
- After falling, Ford was not seen again, and no cry was heard from him.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator of Jerome Ford's estate sued the defendant, the owner of the steam trawler, in a Massachusetts trial court to recover damages for Ford's death.
- Following a trial, a decision was rendered in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, arguing the trial court made legal errors (bringing 'exceptions').
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employer liable for an employee's death when the death resulted from an obvious workplace condition present since the start of employment, and where there is no evidence to show that a subsequent allegedly negligent rescue attempt contributed to the death?
Opinions:
Majority - Carroll, J.
No. An employer is not liable for an employee's death under these circumstances. The court reasoned that an employer has no duty to change obvious conditions of the workplace that existed when the employment relationship began. Ford knew or should have known about the un-railed stairs, which were a permanent feature of his work environment, and the employer was not negligent for failing to alter this obvious condition. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish causation regarding the allegedly negligent rescue effort. Even if the rescue boat was improperly stowed and equipped, there was no evidence that these factors contributed to Ford's death, as he disappeared immediately upon falling overboard. Without proof that a more efficient rescue could have saved him, the defendant cannot be held liable for the failed attempt.
Analysis:
This case illustrates two foundational principles of tort law: duty and causation. It reinforces the doctrine of assumption of risk, where an employee is considered to accept the obvious and known dangers of a job. More critically, it highlights the plaintiff's burden to prove causation-in-fact. The court's refusal to speculate on whether a better rescue effort would have saved Ford establishes that a plaintiff cannot succeed by merely showing a defendant acted negligently; they must concretely link that negligence to the resulting harm.
Unlock the full brief for Ford v. Trident Fisheries Co.