Kernan v. American Dredging Co.
355 U.S. 426, 2 L. Ed. 2d 382, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1772 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Jones Act, which incorporates the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), an employer's violation of a statutory duty that contributes in whole or in part to a seaman's injury or death results in liability, regardless of whether the statute was designed to prevent the specific type of harm that occurred.
Facts:
- On November 18, 1952, a seaman was working on the tug Arthur N. Herron, owned by American Dredging Co., as it towed a scow on the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia.
- The surface of the river was covered with an extensive accumulation of highly inflammable petroleum products from nearby refineries.
- The scow was equipped with an open-flame kerosene lamp placed on its deck, approximately three feet above the water's surface.
- A U.S. Coast Guard navigation regulation required such lamps to be carried at a height of not less than eight feet above the water.
- The low-hanging lamp ignited the flammable vapors lying above the petroleum products on the river.
- The resulting fire caused the death of the seaman.
- The trial court found that the vapors would not have been ignited if the lamp had been carried at the legally required height.
Procedural Posture:
- American Dredging Co. initiated a limitation of liability proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the trial court).
- Kernan, representing the deceased seaman's dependents, filed a claim for damages within that proceeding.
- The District Court denied Kernan's claim.
- Kernan appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, siding with American Dredging Co.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Kernan'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:
Does an employer's violation of a statutory duty under the Jones Act create liability for a seaman's death that results from the violation, even if the statute was not intended to protect against that specific type of harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. An employer's violation of a statutory duty under the Jones Act creates liability for a seaman's death that results from the violation, even if the statute was not intended to protect against that specific type of harm. The Court reasons that the Jones Act incorporates the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), and a long line of FELA cases involving the Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts has established this very principle. The common law tort doctrine, which limits liability to only those injuries a statute was designed to prevent, is inapplicable in FELA and Jones Act cases. The congressional intent behind these acts was to provide liberal recovery for industrial workers by shifting the 'human overhead' of business to the employer. Therefore, where an employer's breach of a statutory duty contributes in fact to an employee's injury or death, liability ensues without any inquiry into the statute's specific purpose or a showing of common-law negligence.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. Liability should not be imposed for a statutory violation unless the resulting injury is of the kind the statute was designed to prevent. The dissent argues that the Jones Act is fundamentally based on negligence, and the majority's decision improperly discards this foundation. The cases creating absolute liability under FELA for violations of the Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts are a narrow exception based on the unique and intimate relationship between those specific statutes and FELA, which demonstrated clear congressional intent for strict liability. No such intent exists for the Coast Guard navigation rule at issue, which was solely aimed at preventing collisions, not fires. By extending the narrow FELA exception to any statutory violation, the Court is creating a 'non-negligence' cause of action not intended by Congress and is effectively making employers virtual insurers of their employees' safety.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens employer liability under the Jones Act by applying the strict liability standard from FELA's Safety Appliance Act cases to violations of any statutory duty. It detaches the concept of 'fault' from traditional common-law negligence, which requires foreseeability, and instead equates it with the simple breach of a statute that causes harm. The ruling establishes that causation is the paramount inquiry; if a statutory violation contributes to an injury, liability attaches, even for unforeseeable harms outside the statute's specific purpose. This creates a powerful, pro-plaintiff standard that encourages employers to adhere strictly to all safety regulations to avoid liability for unexpected accidents.
Unlock the full brief for Kernan v. American Dredging Co.