Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Ford v. Trident Fisheries Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1919 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawTortsemployer negligenceobvious conditionsassumption of existing workplace conditionscausationwrongful deathrescue efforts

Facts

Jerome Ford, the plaintiff's intestate, was employed as mate on the defendant's steam trawler and had worked on that particular boat for about two months. While going aft on deck and ascending four steps from the deck to the pilot house shortly after passing Boston Light, the vessel rolled and he was thrown overboard. The steps had no guard or rail, and they had remained in that same condition throughout his employment. After he fell, he disappeared immediately, no cry was heard, no clothing was seen in the water, and he was not seen again.

Issue

Whether the defendant was negligent either by failing to provide a guard or rail on the steps leading to the pilot house or by keeping the rescue boat lashed to the deck and inadequately equipped, and whether any such negligence was shown to have caused Ford's death.

Rule

An employer owes no duty to an employee to change obvious conditions of the place where the employee is to perform his work when those conditions existed at the start of the employment. Even if conduct related to rescue could be found negligent, the plaintiff cannot recover without evidence that the alleged negligence contributed to the death.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz worked for three months as a warehouse picker for Harbor Slate Logistics in Newark, New Jersey. To reach the elevated inventory platform, employees used a short metal stairway with no handrail, a feature plainly visible from the first day of work and unchanged throughout her employment. During a busy shift, Lena lost her balance on the stairs and fell.

If Lena sues Harbor Slate Logistics for negligence based solely on the absence of a handrail, what is the strongest argument for the employer under the governing rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that an employer is not negligent for continuing an obvious condition of the place where the employee is to perform work when that condition existed at the start of the employment. Here, the missing handrail was open and unchanged throughout Lena's employment, so the employer's strongest position is that it had no duty to alter that existing obvious condition. (Derived from Ford v. Trident Fisheries Co. (1919).)