The TJ Hooper - Summary The Torts Process

The T.J. Hooper (1932) Plaintiff: Owner of the barges Defendant: Operator of the Tugboats (The T.J Hooper) STATEMENT OF THE CASE FACTS Operator of a tugboat was sued for the value of two barges and their cargoes, which were lost at sea during a coastal storm in March 1928. Plaintiff sued Defendant in negligence for failing to equip the tugboats with reliable radios. Basis of Plaintiff’s claim was that the tug was negligently unseaworthy in that it was not equipped with a radio receiver and thus, could note receive reports of an impending storm. There was evidence that suggested had the master heard the weather reports he would have turned back. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Lower court judgment for Plaintiff (owner of the barges) 2. Defendant appealed. APPLICABLE LAW If the utility of a safety precaution outweighs the cost of the precaution, then it is negligent not to carry the safety precaution. An industry’s general custom does not dictate the standard of care. The courts decide what is required of the parties. ISSUE Is the defendant negligent as a customary matter by not having radio receiving sets? HOLDING  We hold the tugs, therefore because had been properly equipped, they would have got the weather reports. The injury was a direct consequence of this unseaworthiness. Decree affirmed. (Decree—an official order issued by legal authority)  If the tugs were properly equipped, then they would have received the weather reports and would have avoided the loss. COURT’S RATIONALE  The radio sets used by other tugboats were partly a toy, partly a part of the equipment of the tugboat, but neither furnished by the owner, nor supervised by the owner. o It is not fair to say that there was a general custom among coastwise carriers to equip their tugs. o An adequate receiving set suitable for a tugboat can be purchased for a small amount of money and is reasonably reliable. Obviously, a radio is a great source of protection to a tugboat. Twice a day tugboat owners can receive weather predictions.  There are cases where courts seem to make the general practice of the calling the standard proper of diligence, which was given notion in this case. o Courts must in the end say what is required, there are some precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omissions. o But here there was no custom as to the receiving sets. We need not pause, when some have thought the device necessary, at least we may say they were right and the others slack. *The statute does not apply in this situation. It discusses transmitting sets rather than receiving sets. (Hand cautioned that custom may not always be a reliable proxy for reasonable care and that courts therefore must be cautious in their deference of custom). CRITIQUE J. Hand states that there is no general custom for tugboats to carry weather radios. However, Defendant is nonetheless negligent for failing to carry a radio. He reasoned that the small cost of a radio, compared with its importance, made Defendant negligent in failing to carry one.