## Facts

- A tug towed a scow on a river at night.
- An open-flame kerosene lamp on the scow was carried about three feet above the water.
- Flammable petroleum vapors lay above an accumulation of petroleum products on the river’s surface.
- The lamp ignited the vapors, causing a fire on the tug that killed a seaman.
- A Coast Guard navigation regulation required the light to be carried at a height of eight feet above the water; compliance would have prevented ignition.
- There was no collision and no claimed fault in navigation apart from the regulatory violation.
- The employer filed a limitation of liability proceeding; the seaman’s estate sought Jones Act damages.
- The district court denied recovery, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Jones Act incorporating FELA, an employer is liable for a seaman’s death caused by violation of a Coast Guard navigation regulation without independent proof of negligence.
2. Whether liability for a regulatory violation may attach even when the resulting harm is not the specific type the regulation was intended to prevent, so long as the violation contributed in fact to the death.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held the employer liable under the Jones Act for death resulting from violation of the Coast Guard regulation pertaining to navigation, without a separate showing of negligence.
- The Court rejected limiting no-fault statutory-violation liability to the Safety Appliance Acts or Boiler Inspection Act and extended the same approach to the Coast Guard regulation at issue.
- The Court treated factual contribution of the violation to the death as sufficient, and did not require that the death be the particular hazard the regulation principally sought to avert.

## Legal Principles

- The Jones Act incorporates FELA’s cause of action and judicially developed liability rules for statutory or regulatory violations.
- Under FELA § 1 principles applied through the Jones Act, when a statutory or regulatory violation produces a defect or insufficiency in equipment or appliances used in the employer’s operations, liability may follow without proof of negligence if the violation contributed in fact to the injury or death.
- For this form of liability, the injury need not be the specific harm the violated statute or regulation was designed to prevent, so long as the violation factually contributed to the injury.
- The causation requirement is satisfied by a showing that the violation contributed in fact to the death; it need not be the sole or predominant cause.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a seaman’s employer may be held liable under the Jones Act, without separate proof of negligence, when a Coast Guard regulatory violation involving shipboard equipment factually contributes to a seaman’s death, even if the resulting harm differs from the regulation’s primary purpose.


Kernan v. Am. Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426 (1958)