Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 539, 80 S.Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941, 1960 AMC 1503 (1960)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Frank Mitchell (plaintiff) was a crew member on the fishing vessel Racer, which was owned and operated by Trawler Racer, Inc. (defendant). Mitchell was injured when he stepped onto a railing to reach a pier ladder and slipped. The railing was slippery because it had become coated with fish slime during the unloading of the catch the Racer had just brought in. Mitchell sued Trawler Racer in federal district court for a Jones Act negligence claim, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure. The district court instructed the jury that recovery under either the negligence claim or the unseaworthiness claim required a finding that the unsafe condition must have existed long enough for the shipowner to have known and been able to fix the condition. Mitchell alleged that the unseaworthiness claim did not require a showing of knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. The jury awarded Mitchell maintenance and cure but found for Trawler Racer on both the negligence and the unseaworthiness claims. Mitchell appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the decision, holding that a shipowner has a duty only of reasonable care under the circumstances for unseaworthy conditions that arise during a voyage. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Dissent (Harlan, J.)
Dissent (Frankfurter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
