William J. Brennan, Jr.

Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers Inc…

The additional factors on which the Court relies add nothing to the inherent deficiencies of petitioner's testimony which the Court seems to recognize did not of itself make out a case of either negligence or unseaworthiness. If it is permissible for a jury to rationalize 'into being' a defective wrench from this sort of evidence, then wrenches have indeed become dangerous weapons for those operating vessels on the Great Lakes.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers Inc…

The owner has an absolute duty to furnish reasonably suitable appliances. If he does not, then no amount of due care or prudence excuses him, whether he knew, or could have known, of its deficiency at the outset or after use. In contrast, under the negligence concept, there is only a duty to use due care, i.e., reasonable prudence, to select and keep in order reasonably suitable appliances.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers Inc…

The trial judge found the evidence to be insufficient to present a jury question whether the wrench was a reasonably suitable appliance, because 'on the theory the grip is worn * * * there is never any mention of the grip in the case * * *.' The Court of Appeals took the same view, saying 'There was no evidence that the open or jaw end of the wrench was in any way deficient * * * (t) he fact that the wrench slipped is not evidence that its slipping was the consequence of some condition in the jaw or handle of the wrench.' 271 F.2d at page 199.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature