## Facts

- Jerome Ford worked as a mate on a fishing vessel owned and operated by Trident Fisheries Co.
- On December 21, 1916, while the vessel was at sea, Ford came on deck around six o’clock to stand his watch.
- As Ford came on deck, the vessel rolled and Ford was thrown overboard.
- No one saw Ford in the water; no cry was heard; no clothing or other trace was seen floating.
- The crew lowered a small boat to search for Ford; the boat was suspended from davits and carried only one oar.
- Ford was never recovered and was presumed drowned.
- The administratrix of Ford’s estate brought a negligence/wrongful-death action against Trident, alleging that (1) Trident failed to provide safe conditions where Ford was required to work and (2) the rescue equipment and rescue attempt were inadequate, including the boat’s lack of a second oar.
- The trial court entered judgment for Trident (removing the case from the jury). The plaintiff appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable finding that Trident’s alleged negligence—unsafe vessel conditions and/or inadequate rescue equipment (including a one-oar rescue boat)—was a factual cause of Ford’s death.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed judgment for Trident Fisheries Co.
- Even assuming some defect in the vessel’s conditions or in the rescue boat’s equipment, the plaintiff did not present evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that any such negligence caused Ford to go overboard or caused his death by preventing a successful rescue.
- Because Ford disappeared immediately, was not seen, and left no observable trace, the claimed causal link between the alleged negligence and the death was speculative as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- In a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove not only a breach of duty but also that the defendant’s negligence was a cause in fact of the injury or death.
- Proof of negligent conditions or negligent equipment, standing alone, does not permit recovery where the record provides no reasonable basis to infer that the negligence probably made a difference in the outcome.
- An employer is not required, on these facts, to change visible and ordinary conditions of the vessel that are apparent to an employee; and in any event, liability still requires proof that the condition caused the harm.
- Where the evidence leaves the cause of the accident and the possibility of rescue to conjecture, the court may resolve the case as a matter of law rather than submit it to the jury.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for Trident because the administratrix did not produce evidence that any allegedly unsafe condition aboard the vessel or any inadequacy in the rescue boat (including having only one oar) caused Ford’s fall, delayed an effective rescue, or otherwise contributed to his drowning; any such causal claim would rest on speculation rather than proof.


Ford v. Trident Fisheries Co., 232 Mass. 400, 122 N.E. 389 (1919)