McClure v. United States Lines Co.

Eugene McClure was a drunk American seaman in France who was trying to return from shore leave to his ship, the Keystone State. However, McClure attempted to board the American Angler, which was moored one mile from McClure’s ship. The American Angler’s chief engineer gave McClure coffee and sat him 20 to 25 feet from the dock’s edge. McClure was restrained twice from leaving the area because he was too intoxicated to walk alone along the waterfront. The American Angler’s master, chief engineer, and other crew members assisted McClure. Eventually, the master left McClure and returned to the American Angler. The chief engineer then offered to help McClure find the Keystone State. The chief engineer told McClure to wait on the dock while he retrieved his jacket, and no one watched McClure while the chief engineer got his coat. McClure fell into the water. Although McClure was promptly retrieved from the water by the American Angler crew members, attempts to revive him failed. Ava McClure (plaintiff), McClure’s widow, sought damages for her husband’s death from United States Lines Company (defendant), the owner of the American Angler, in federal district court. Professor von Mehren of Harvard Law School testified on behalf of McClure’s widow to prove French law. Von Mehren testified there was no precedent for imposing liability on a person who did not voluntarily abstain from rendering assistance but whose efforts were ineffectual. Because the American Angler crew members had not voluntarily abstained from assisting McClure, the district court concluded there was no violation of French law. However, von Mehren further testified that implicit in Article 63 of the French Penal Code and Articles 1382 and 1383 of the French Civil Code was a duty to act with care in rendering the requisite assistance. The district court found no violation of French law and, alternatively, no negligence on the part of the American Angler’s crew. McClure’s widow appealed, arguing that the court’s finding of fact was wrong and reversible, and that the court’s construction of French law was erroneous.