In re Trans-Pacific Fishing & Packing Co.
1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3344, 152 F. Supp. 44 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vessel owner breaches the warranty of seaworthiness when the vessel or its equipment is not reasonably fit for its intended use. Furthermore, a vessel's master is negligent for failing to use every possible means to rescue crew members who are washed overboard.
Facts:
- Trans-Pacific Fishing & Packing Co. owned the tuna fishing vessel M. V. Western Clipper.
- On May 19, 1954, a nylon sling used to hoist a fishing net broke during normal operations, causing a hook and shackle to fall on and injure crew member Sam Sizgorich.
- On May 29, 1954, during a storm, a canvas hatch cover that was nailed to a wooden coaming was torn loose by rough seas.
- Crew members Martin Mrvica, Andrew Neri, and Phillip LaFata were ordered onto the deck to refasten the loose canvas cover.
- After they finished the work, a heavy sea washed over the deck, sweeping all three men overboard.
- The vessel's skipper did not turn the vessel around or otherwise attempt to search for the men, citing dangerous conditions and advice from the engineer, though he did issue a 'May Day' call.
- Mrvica was rescued by another ship after 14 hours and Neri was rescued after 56 hours; LaFata's body was never found and he was presumed to have died.
- Water was leaking through a broken port and the deck into the engine room, causing electrical shorts and small fires.
Procedural Posture:
- Trans-Pacific Fishing & Packing Co., the vessel owner, filed a petition for limitation of liability in the United States District Court (court of first instance).
- Sam Sizgorich, Martin Mrvica, Andrew Neri, and the administratrix of Phillip LaFata's estate filed claims for damages and answered the owner's petition.
- The case was submitted to the District Court for a decision based on evidence presented at trial.
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 vessel owner breach the warranty of seaworthiness by failing to maintain essential equipment like hatch cover fastenings and fishing slings, and are they negligent for failing to attempt a rescue of crew members washed overboard?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowen, District Judge
Yes. A vessel owner is liable for injuries resulting from the unseaworthiness of the vessel and for the negligent failure to rescue crew members. The court found the M. V. Western Clipper unseaworthy for multiple reasons. First, the nylon sling that broke and injured Sizgorich was 'insufficient and inadequate' for its normal use, rendering the vessel unseaworthy. Second, the practice of nailing the canvas hatch cover to the wooden coaming was a 'haphazard' arrangement that weakened the ship's structure and was not reasonably safe, directly leading to the crew being exposed to the storm. Third, leaking water that damaged electrical equipment further contributed to the vessel's unseaworthy condition. The court also found the skipper and owner negligent for failing in their duty to rescue the men washed overboard, as they made no effort to turn the vessel, deploy lifelines, or use a skiff, which is a breach of the duty to use 'every possible available means' for rescue. Because the owner had knowledge of these conditions ('privity'), their petition to limit liability was denied.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad scope of the warranty of seaworthiness in general maritime law, extending it beyond the vessel's hull to all appurtenant equipment, including fishing gear and hatch coverings. It establishes that makeshift or improper repair methods, like nailing down a hatch cover instead of using proper cleats, can render a vessel unseaworthy. The case also strongly affirms the affirmative and non-delegable duty of a vessel's master to attempt a rescue of crew lost overboard, setting a high standard that failure to make any effort constitutes actionable negligence. The finding of owner 'privity' is significant as it prevents owners from using statutory limitation of liability as a shield when they are aware of unsafe conditions.
