Kirincich v. Standard Dredging Co.
112 F.2d 163 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vessel owner has a duty to provide buoyant life-saving apparatus, such as life rings or preservers, and will be held liable for a crew member's drowning if the failure to provide such equipment might have been a factor in the death, even if it cannot be proven with certainty that it would have saved them.
Facts:
- Kirincich was a deck-hand employed by the respondent on a dredge operating near Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
- Around 4:00 a.m. on February 19, 1933, while it was still dark, Kirincich was on a derrick barge being towed between two piers.
- For reasons that are not clear, Kirincich fell off the barge into 35-foot-deep water.
- Other crew members immediately threw one-inch diameter heaving lines toward Kirincich, with one line landing within two feet of him.
- Kirincich was unable to grasp the small lines and drowned.
- The barge itself did not have any readily available buoyant life-saving equipment like life preservers or life rings, although a nearby launch had some in its racks.
Procedural Posture:
- The libelant, representing Kirincich's estate, sued the respondent dredge owner in a federal district court with admiralty jurisdiction.
- Following a trial, the district court entered a decree in favor of the respondent.
- The libelant appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third 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 vessel owner's failure to provide buoyant life-saving equipment, beyond one-inch heaving lines, constitute negligence and a legal cause of a crew member's drowning, even when it is not certain that such equipment would have prevented the death?
Opinions:
Majority - Clark, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A vessel owner's failure to provide buoyant life-saving equipment constitutes negligence and is a legal cause of a drowning if the equipment might have prevented the death. The court rejected a strict 'but-for' causation standard that would require certainty, instead adopting the view that causation is established if reasonable people could differ on whether the crew member might have been saved. A drowning person's instinct for self-preservation makes it more likely they could grasp a larger, buoyant object than a small, sinking line. Given the special duty of care owed to seamen as 'wards of admiralty' and the minimal cost of providing proper life-saving equipment, the failure to have it readily available is a breach of the standard of care.
Analysis:
This decision relaxes the strict 'but-for' causation standard in maritime rescue cases, shifting the burden of uncertainty onto the negligent party. It establishes a clear standard of care requiring vessels, even those on inland waters, to carry readily accessible, buoyant life-saving equipment beyond mere ropes. The court's reasoning, emphasizing the protection of human life over minimal property costs and the special status of seamen, strengthens the duty of rescue in admiralty law. Future cases will likely find negligence where simple, inexpensive, and effective safety precautions are ignored, even if their life-saving potential in a specific instance cannot be proven with certainty.
Unlock the full brief for Kirincich v. Standard Dredging Co.