Law Commons^™

Vincent As A Negligence Case, Peter M. Gerhart

Peter M. Gerhart

In a recent symposium, Professor Sugarman asks whether any account of Vincent v. Lake Erie Steamship Company provides a justification for the outcome that avoids doctrinal, conceptual question-begging or unexplained inconsistencies within tort doctrine. This article takes that challenge seriously by providing a justification for the decision that specifies the source of the defendant’s obligation to compensate the plaintiff. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the outcome in Vincent is based on fault, not strict liability. Although the decision to stay at the dock was socially appropriate, the shipowner acted unreasonably by making that decision without simultaneously agreeing (implicitly) to compensate the …