## Facts

- William Hays (defendant) was the master and a part owner of a cargo vessel jointly owned with Williams and others (plaintiffs).
- By agreement, Hays took the vessel “on shares,” with primary possession, “absolute control and management,” and responsibility to man, supply, and operate the vessel for the voyage.
- The vessel sailed with cargo and was caught in a severe storm for roughly three days.
- During the storm Hays worked with little food or sleep, became exhausted and ill, and at one point took a strong malaria medicine (often described as quinine).
- After taking the medicine, members of the crew thought Hays was acting drunk or insane.
- The vessel was damaged (including impaired steering) and drifted toward shore in a dangerous condition.
- Two separate tugboats encountered the vessel, observed her distress, and offered to tow her to safety.
- Hays refused both offers of assistance.
- The vessel later went ashore and became a total loss.
- Hays later testified that he remembered nothing from around the time he went to his cabin until he found himself on shore, claiming mental incapacity from sickness, exhaustion, and the medicine.
- The other owners sued Hays for negligent management, seeking to recover their losses.
- The trial court instructed the jury, in substance, that if Hays was insane at the relevant time he was not responsible; the jury returned a verdict for Hays.
- The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after intermediate appellate proceedings.

## Issues

1. Does a defendant’s insanity or temporary mental incapacity excuse liability for negligence that causes property loss?
2. When one part owner has sole management and control of a jointly owned vessel “on shares,” does he owe the other owners a duty of due care and potential responsibility for the conduct of the crew?

## Decision

- The court stated the general rule that an insane person is liable for torts to the same extent as a sane person, except for torts where malice or intent is a required element; this includes liability for negligent acts and negligent omissions.
- The court held it was error to allow the jury to absolve Hays solely upon finding that he was insane at the time of the refusal of towage or the loss.
- The court treated Hays’s “on shares” arrangement—absolute control and responsibility to man and supply the vessel—as making him an “owner pro hac vice,” owing duties of due care to the other owners and not merely acting as their agent.
- The court noted, at minimum, that Hays could not avoid responsibility unless it appeared his incapacity arose solely from his efforts to save the vessel during the storm; the court left open additional questions about responsibility for the mate’s and crew’s conduct in that situation.
- Disposition: the court ordered a new trial because the jury instructions misstated the law on insanity and negligence.

## Legal Principles

- An insane person is generally liable for torts the same as a sane person, except where intent or malice is an element of the claim.
- Negligence uses an objective standard of care; mental incapacity ordinarily does not lower the level of care required.
- There is no general negligence exemption based on classifying conduct as misfeasance rather than nonfeasance.
- A part owner who takes a vessel “on shares,” with exclusive management and responsibility to crew and supply her, may be treated as an owner pro hac vice and owes co-owners a duty of due care in the vessel’s operation and preservation.
- A trial court errs by instructing that insanity is a complete defense to negligence without addressing the cause and timing of the incapacity and its legal effect under the objective negligence standard.

## Conclusion

Williams v. Hays held that insanity is not a blanket defense to negligence and that a master who is also a part owner with exclusive control of the vessel “on shares” may owe co-owners a duty of due care; because the jury was told it could excuse liability simply by finding Hays was insane, the New York Court of Appeals required a new trial under the correct negligence standard.


Williams v. Hays, 38 N.E.2d 449 (1894)