Document: 370 U.S. 31 82 S.Ct. 1119 8 L.Ed.2d 313 James Victor SALEM, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY. No. 283. Argued March 19, 1962. Decided May 28, Rehearing Denied June 25, See 965, 1578. Robert Klonsky, Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner. Walter X. Connor, New York City, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The first question to be decided seaman's personal injury suit damages on grounds unseaworthiness and negligence under Jones Act1 is whether jury should have been allowed determine, in absence supporting testimony by an expert naval architecture, a claim that shipowner failed equip his ship with necessary feasible safety devices prevent mishap which befell seaman. 2 trial judge submitted jury's determination various bases respondent's alleged liability, including resting failure provide certain devices. Because returned general verdict seaman, it cannot said what basis liability found exist. Court Appeals Second Circuit, Judge Smith dissenting, reversed remanded new trial, holding evidence, was error consider Cir., 293 F.2d 121, 123—124. Since needed important litigation this type, we granted certiorari. 368 811, 62, 7 21. We hold erred. 3 Petitioner lookout S.S. United States. He injured as he moved from ladder platform leading post crow's-nest. crow's-nest housed 'bubble' half way up hollow aluminum radar tower rose 65 feet bridge deck. extended full height along inside its after side. At levels were horizontal platforms, at ends access openings slightly larger than manholes, through passed straight up. more six fore aft level, tapered four three width. There only narrow ledge around three-quarters opening level; proper toward bow, led door As seaman climbed crow's-nest, faced astern until approximately level platform. To get proper, had pivot, putting one foot starboard or port ledge, follow other foot, complete pivot step forward proper. Although respondent describes approach 'purposely constructed so maximum protection members crew having use it,' there no intended facilitate safe maneuvering platform; support during maneuver, could grasp thin vertical beams located intervals sides, vertical, bulky rectangular pipe enclosing cable near side, stiffener ledging ran shoulder-height tower. Respondent argues also simply spread arms brace himself against sides 4 On night February 15—16, 1958, States went high speed rolled rough seas, plunged into darkness, just petitioner executing movement ladder. Illumination within provided five electric lights levels, but these burned out frequently. Two long period two others gone few hours before accident, leaving light some point begun maneuver platform, reached place away opening, last out. An instant later fell backwards across struck head lower back edge body suspended opening. grasped rungs called help duty With lookout's aid able seat legs hanging down right arm pipe. phone help. In became dizzy eight below 5 issue us phase case erred instructing they might find liable 'railings devices' held submit because 'There marine architecture required additional provision railings such enclosed crow's nest. Should jury, conditions, permitted decide devices? recent cases, court has not speculate matters evidence.'2 123. evidence form photographs, clearly see construction described. If are peculiar fact circumstances made impossible intelligently, told those are, our examination record discloses none.3 claims touch upon can never succeed without neither nor refers authority reason any broad proposition. 6 This rare causes action law predicates recovery testimony. Wigmore, Evidence (od ed. 1940), §§ 2090, 2090a. Rather, rule stated Van Devanter, when circuit judge, unnecessary indeed may properly excluded discretion 'if all primary facts accurately intelligibly described if they, men common understanding, capable comprehending drawing correct conclusions them witnesses possessed special training, experience, observation respect subject investigation * *.' Smelting Co. v. Parry, 10 166 F. 407, 411, 415. Furthermore, matter admission exclusion sustained unless manifestly erroneous. Spring Edgar, 99 645, 658, 25 L.Ed. 487. held, factual context similar this, error, let alone manifest experts. Spokane & Inland Empire R. States, 241 344, 36 668, 60 1037, recover penalties violation Safety Appliance Act requiring handholds grab-irons placed railroad cars used interstate commerce.4 defendant offered establish substitutes would accomplish statute's purposes. inspected cars, objected 'was knowledge.' 'the experts, hearing inspecting (cars) competent determine 351, 671.5 sum, agree dissent below: 9 sufficient both oral visualize plaintiff railing hand addition structures present reasonably passing swaying mast. '* (There no) blanket proposition theories and/or field 'naval architecture' supported Here potential danger fairly obvious perfectly furnished discharge owner's seamen work. Such hardly requires knowledge 126. 11 Indeed, hidden ordinary mind why condition things must existed, make known.' Missouri, K. T.R. Williams, 103 Tex. 228, 231, 125 S.W. 881, 882; Poignant 225 595, 602 (concurring opinion).6 12 another decided. sought maintenance cure. awarded past maintenance, disputed, future years. set aside award saying: does appear basis, otherwise, finding years expected Salem reach improvement.' F.2d, 125. judgment findings. therefore examined Calmar S. Corp. Taylor, 303 525, 531—532, 58 651, 655, 993: (A)mounts (for such) needful immediate cure kind definitely ascertained.' provides test years' maintenance. 13 affirm respects otherwise reverse Appeals. reversal urged court, further proceedings conformity opinion. It ordered. 14 Affirmed part, part directions. 15 FRANKFURTER took decision case. 16 WHITE consideration 17 HARLAN, dissenting concurring part. 18 I do read Appeals' either that, 'peculiar circumstances' petitioner's respecting faulty 'supporting testimony' (ante, U.S., pp. 35, 32, S.Ct., 1122, 1120) (emphasis added), establishing every instance where employer's 19 Taking record, think apparent 'there view feasibly constructed, constituted unseaworthy.' (Emphasis added.) me seems clear referred example score. Consequently, District Court's charge negligent 'in failing injected theory presented introduced trial. uniformly constitute reversible error. E.g., Mandel Pennsylvania Co., 291 433; Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 247 761, 766; Wilmington Star Mining Fulton, 205 60, 78—79, 27 412, 51 708. 20 transcript, insofar reproduced Court, bears conclusion maintain appropriate entirely lacking. Petitioner's apart medical concerning extent injuries, related almost slippery inadequate defective lighting, lookout. did testify 'grip' 'handrails' photographs confirm undisputed assertion. 21 nothing court's instruction certainly left large uninformed reasonable conduct equipping ship. No show towers vessels sort ordinarily equipped assigned thereto need equipment course their activities. Expert served purpose, bearing probatively reasonableness vessel justified amounted 22 affirm. 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U.S.C. § 688, U.S.C.A. 688. majority quoted Martin Fruit 272 347, follows: "Finally, reject plaintiff's contention committed permitting placement hinge bottom deadlight improper method unseaworthy. Surely technical nautical order intelligent judgment. introduced, exclude consideration." Fatovic Nederlandsch-Ameridaansche Stoomvaart, Maatschappij, 275 188, stopping arrangement ton-and-a-half boom keep swinging freely: "In event, about jurors lack *. matter, jury." 123 124. Whatever showing necessity here. Compare Texas Pacific Watson, 190 287, 290, 23 681, 682, 47 1057, difficulties impeding installation truly effective device. 531, 45 4, 4. room doctrine equivalent, substitute devices, St. Joseph Grand Island Moore, 243 311, 37 278, 61 741, competence unimpaired. value expert's explain best device clear, here provided. Zinnel Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 47, 48. Nor customary equippage essential, pure Oil Snipes, 71; nor, even offered, concluded questions negligence. Wabash McDaniels, 107 454, 460—461, 932, 937, 605; Trunk Richardson, 91 469—470, 356; T. J. Hooper, 737; Kennair Mississippi 197 T., Inc., King, 290 404. favors experts problem 'upon lay uneducated forming judgment,' Milwaukee P.R. Kellogg, 94 469, 472, 24 256, arguably beyond will admitted care. reflects avoidance unnecessarily prolonged trials attendant expense confusion. Winans Erie How. 88, 100—101, 68; Thorn Worthing Skating Rink (1876), reported Plimpton Spiller, Ch.D. footnote 415—418 (1877).

Category: 7