The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Grimstad (P) was a passenger on New York Central R.R.'s (D) barge. D's barge was bumped by a tug. P, who could not swim, fell overboard. P's wife saw him in the water. She ran to get help. When she returned with a rope, P had drowned. P sued under the Employer's Liability Act for damages from P's death. P's wife claimed that had there been a life preserver on board, she could have saved him. D moved to dismiss the complaint because the issue of whether a life preserver or life buoy would have saved D was pure speculation and conjecture in the absence of any testimony on that issue. The jury ruled for P, holding that D was negligent in not equipping the barge with life preservers. D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.