## Facts

- Frank Mitchell, a seaman aboard the fishing trawler *Racer*, was injured after the vessel returned to Boston from a ten-day voyage and was unloading fish and fish spawn.
- After unloading, Mitchell changed clothes and went on deck to go ashore using a customary route: stepping onto the ship’s rail to reach a ladder attached to the pier.
- Mitchell slipped on slime and fish gurry on the rail left from the unloading operations and fell, sustaining injuries.
- Mitchell sued the shipowner, Trawler Racer, Inc., asserting (1) Jones Act negligence, (2) unseaworthiness, and (3) maintenance and cure.
- The trial court instructed the jury that recovery for negligence or unseaworthiness required proof that the unsafe condition existed long enough for the shipowner to have known and corrected it (actual or constructive notice); the court refused an instruction that notice was unnecessary for unseaworthiness.
- The jury awarded maintenance and cure but found for the shipowner on negligence and unseaworthiness.
- The First Circuit affirmed on the view that transitory conditions require reasonable care and notice.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether knowledge of a temporary unseaworthy condition is an element of the seaman’s case.

## Issues

1. Whether a seaman alleging unseaworthiness from a temporary condition must prove the shipowner had actual or constructive knowledge of that condition.
2. Whether liability for temporary unseaworthy conditions differs from liability for permanent unseaworthy conditions.
3. Whether jury instructions that condition unseaworthiness recovery on notice improperly import negligence concepts into the unseaworthiness doctrine.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that a shipowner’s actual or constructive knowledge of a temporary unseaworthy condition is not an essential element of a seaman’s unseaworthiness claim.
- The Court rejected any distinction in unseaworthiness liability between temporary (transitory) and permanent conditions.
- The Court concluded the trial court’s notice-based instruction misstated the law of unseaworthiness by effectively limiting the duty to reasonable care.

## Legal Principles

- The shipowner’s warranty of seaworthiness imposes an absolute duty to provide a vessel and appurtenances reasonably fit for their intended use.
- Unseaworthiness liability is independent of common-law negligence concepts; it does not turn on fault, due care, or the owner’s knowledge of the condition.
- Liability for unseaworthiness is the same whether the unseaworthy condition is permanent or temporary; proof of notice is not required for transitory unseaworthiness.
- The warranty does not require an accident-free ship; the standard is reasonable fitness of the vessel’s condition, not perfection.

## Conclusion

The Court held that unseaworthiness is a condition-based, fault-independent duty and that a seaman need not prove the shipowner had notice of a temporary unsafe condition; instructions requiring notice wrongly convert unseaworthiness into negligence and require reversal.


Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539 (1960)