## Facts

- Angell Grimstad was captain of the barge *Grayton*, owned by New York Central Railroad Company, while it was docked at Erie Basin piers in Brooklyn.
- During docking, a tug bumped the barge, and Grimstad fell overboard into the water.
- Grimstad could not swim; his wife saw him in the water about ten feet from the barge with his hands raised.
- Mrs. Grimstad ran to the cabin to retrieve a small rope or line; when she returned, Grimstad had disappeared and drowned.
- The barge lacked life preservers or a lifebuoy.
- Mrs. Grimstad, as widow and administratrix, sued under the federal Employers’ Liability Act, alleging negligence based on the failure to provide life-preserving equipment.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
- The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of proof on causation.

## Issues

1. Whether the absence of life preservers or a lifebuoy was supported by legally sufficient evidence as a cause in fact of Grimstad’s drowning, rather than mere speculation.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held the evidence did not establish that the absence of life-saving equipment caused Grimstad’s death.
- The court concluded the jury’s causation finding rested on conjecture, and the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss.

## Legal Principles

- A negligence claim requires proof that the defendant’s act or omission was a cause in fact of the injury; possibility alone is insufficient.
- When causation depends on a chain of unproven assumptions (e.g., timely retrieval, proper use, victim’s ability to grasp the device, and successful prevention of drowning), the issue should not be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.
- The omission of a safety measure does not establish liability without affirmative evidence that the measure probably would have prevented the harm.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the verdict because the plaintiff failed to prove that missing life-saving equipment probably would have prevented the drowning; the asserted causal connection was speculative and therefore legally insufficient.


N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Grimstad, 264 F. 334 (2d Cir. 1920)