Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
1959 U.S. LEXIS 1769, 3 L. Ed. 2d 550, 358 U.S. 625 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a ship in navigable waters owes a duty of exercising reasonable care under the circumstances to all persons who are on board for purposes not inimical to the owner's legitimate interests. Federal maritime law does not recognize the common law distinctions between the duties owed to licensees and invitees.
Facts:
- Joseph Kermarec obtained a pass to board the S.S. Oregon, a vessel owned by Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, docked in New York City.
- The purpose of Kermarec's visit was purely social: to visit crew member Henry Yves and give him a package for a mutual friend.
- It was customary practice on the vessel for crew members to entertain guests.
- Several hours later, while descending a stairway to leave the ship, Kermarec fell and sustained injuries.
- The fall was allegedly caused by a canvas runner that had been defectively tacked to the stairway.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Kermarec filed an action for personal injuries against Compagnie Generale Transatlantique in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, invoking diversity jurisdiction.
- The trial judge applied New York state law, dismissing an unseaworthiness claim and instructing the jury that Kermarec was a 'gratuitous licensee' to whom the shipowner owed a very limited duty of care.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Kermarec.
- The trial judge then granted the shipowner's motion to set aside the verdict and dismissed the complaint, ruling there was no proof the owner had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition.
- Kermarec, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Kermarec's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under federal maritime law, does a shipowner owe a social guest, classified under common law as a licensee, a standard of care less than that of reasonable care?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No. The owner of a ship in navigable waters owes all who are on board for purposes not inimical to his legitimate interests the duty of exercising reasonable care under the circumstances. The Court reasoned that because the injury occurred on navigable waters, federal maritime law, not state law, governs the case. It held that the common law distinctions between licensee and invitee, which are rooted in feudal land-based law, are alien to the maritime law's traditions of simplicity and practicality. Rather than importing these complex and confusing categories, admiralty law imposes a single duty of reasonable care on shipowners toward all persons lawfully on board.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a single, uniform standard of care for shipowners toward lawful visitors under general maritime law, decisively rejecting the complex common law categories of invitee and licensee. By doing so, the Court promoted simplicity and uniformity in admiralty tort law, ensuring that legal outcomes do not vary based on the state law of the port where a ship is docked. This ruling reinforces the principle that maritime law is a distinct body of federal law that is not bound by land-based common law concepts, particularly those with archaic feudal origins.
