The Arizona v. Anelich

Background

A fisherman working at the aft drum of a power winch on a fishing vessel was pulling in the purse line when his leg became entangled and was drawn onto the revolving drum. The winch had two ways to stop it: a lever below decks and a lever beside the winch. Because a worn clutch would not stay engaged, crew members used a wooden brace to hold the winch lever in place, which delayed stopping the winch. The seaman’s injuries led to infection and death. A jury returned a verdict for the seaman’s survivors, and the State Supreme Court held that assumption of risk was not a defense under the Jones Act.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a seaman could be prevented from recovering under the Jones Act because he “assumed the risk” of a dangerous appliance. The Court explained that the Jones Act brings certain railroad-employer rules into maritime law but does not explicitly adopt assumption of risk as a defense for seamen. Maritime law historically denied relief only in very limited ways and allowed recovery for unseaworthiness and defective appliances. The Jones Act was described as remedial legislation meant to enlarge protections for seamen, not to narrow them. The Court therefore held that assumption of risk is not available as a defense in Jones Act suits. The Court did not retry the facts of negligence or proximate cause.

Real world impact

The ruling means that seamen and their estates can pursue damages when ship equipment is defective without being blocked by an assumption-of-risk defense. Employers and shipowners cannot rely on the seaman’s job danger to avoid liability; fault and causation still depend on the facts decided by juries.