Gardner v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc.
310 F.2d 284, 91 A.L.R. 2d 1023 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A ship master's duty to attempt to rescue a seaman who has fallen overboard arises when there is a reasonable possibility of rescue, and a master's complete failure to make any attempt constitutes a breach of that duty. Causation is established if the failure to act destroys that reasonable possibility of rescue, relieving the plaintiff of the burden of proving that the seaman would have been saved.
Facts:
- On December 8, 1958, seaman Robert Gardner was aboard the S.S. Bulkcrude, which was en route from New York to Corpus Christi.
- Gardner was last seen by the crew at approximately 6:00 p.m.
- At 11:30 p.m., Gardner was called to stand watch but could not be found.
- The ship's master ordered an hour-long search of the vessel, which was unsuccessful.
- Throughout the onboard search and for the remainder of the voyage, the master did not alter the vessel's course or speed to search the surrounding waters.
- At 12:30 a.m., the master notified the Coast Guard of the missing seaman but took no further rescue action himself.
- Expert testimony at trial indicated that a person could have survived in the water under the existing conditions and that a reasonable search would have had some possibility of success.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Gardner's widow and executrix (the libellant) filed suit under the Jones Act against the vessel S.S. Bulkcrude and her owner (the respondents) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Following a trial, the District Court found for the respondents, concluding that the master's failure to search had no causal connection with the seaman's death.
- The libellant appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 ship master's complete failure to alter course or make any attempt to search the water for a seaman discovered missing at sea constitute a breach of the duty of rescue under the Jones Act when the exact time and location the seaman went overboard are unknown?
Opinions:
Majority - Sobeloff, C.J.
Yes. A ship master's complete failure to make any attempt to rescue a missing seaman is a breach of duty. The admiralty law rescue doctrine imposes an obligation on a master to use every reasonable means to save a seaman's life. This duty arises whenever there is a reasonable possibility of rescue. The uncertainty about when Gardner went overboard—it could have been minutes before he was missed—created such a possibility. The master's refusal to make any effort whatever, when the only loss would have been time, cannot be justified. Causation is established by the breach itself, as the master's omission destroyed the reasonable possibility of rescue and obliterated any evidence that could prove whether a search would have succeeded. The law must cast the burden of risk involved in such inaction on the ship, not on the helpless person in the water.
Dissenting - Haynsworth, J.
No. The master's inaction was not a breach of duty because the district court's finding that there was no reasonable possibility of rescue was not clearly erroneous. The appellate court exceeds its authority by re-weighing the facts. The ship had traveled over 85 miles during the 5.5-hour period of uncertainty, the night was dark and moonless, and unpredictable currents made determining a search area impossible. Multiple maritime experts, including Coast Guard personnel, testified that a search would have been futile and impractical without knowing when and where Gardner went overboard. The district court's finding was supported by the great weight of this testimony and should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the rescue doctrine in maritime law by defining both the scope of the duty and the standard for causation. By holding that the failure to even attempt a rescue establishes causation, the court shifts the burden of uncertainty from the victim to the party that breached its duty. This precedent makes it very difficult for a ship's owner to defend against a Jones Act claim by arguing that a search would have been futile, especially when that futility can only be speculated upon because no search was ever conducted. The ruling incentivizes masters to always undertake a rescue effort, no matter how slim the perceived chances of success.
Unlock the full brief for Gardner v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc.