## Facts

- Two coal barges (No. 17 and No. 30) loaded at Norfolk, Virginia, for tow to New York in March 1928.
- The barges were towed by two tugs owned by Eastern Transportation Company: the *Montrose* and the *T.J. Hooper*.
- After passing the Delaware Breakwater around midnight on March 8, the weather deteriorated into an easterly gale off the New Jersey coast on March 10.
- Neither tug carried a reliable radio receiving set capable of receiving U.S. Weather Bureau forecasts.
- Other tugs in the area had radios, received storm warnings, and anchored safely in the Delaware harbor.
- The barges and their coal cargoes were lost in the storm; cargo and barge interests alleged that timely radio warnings would have led the tugs to seek shelter and avoid the loss.

## Issues

1. Whether reasonable care and seaworthiness required coastal tugs in 1928 to carry radio receivers to obtain weather forecasts.
2. Whether the failure to carry radio receivers rendered the tugs unseaworthy and proximately caused the loss.
3. Whether the absence of an industry-wide custom requiring radios precluded a finding of negligence.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s interlocutory decree imposing liability on the tug owner for the loss.
- The court held the tugs were unseaworthy and the tug operator negligent for failing to equip the tugs with radio receiving sets.
- The court rejected the argument that uneven industry practice excused the omission.
- The court treated the lack of radios as a direct cause of the loss because radios would have provided timely storm warnings prompting shelter at the Delaware Breakwater.

## Legal Principles

- Industry custom is relevant evidence but does not control the legal standard of reasonable care; courts determine what precautions due care requires.
- Even if a practice is not universal, failure to adopt a readily available, effective, low-cost safety device can constitute negligence.
- In admiralty towing, unseaworthiness may be based on inadequate safety equipment where the equipment would materially reduce foreseeable risks.
- Causation may be found where omitted safety equipment would likely have provided actionable information (such as weather warnings) that would have changed the vessel’s conduct and avoided harm.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the tug owner’s failure to carry radio receivers made the tugs unseaworthy and negligent, and that industry lag in adopting radios did not set or lower the legal standard of due care when an inexpensive precaution would likely have prevented the loss.


The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932)