"Discussion 2: Compliance with Custom"

• In the classic T.J. Hooper case at 60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932) and at p. 155 in your textbook, the court discusses the relevance of "industry custom" in determining negligence. Here, the court held the tugboatTJ Hooperliable for sunken barges, because they did not seek shelter in a storm and were not equipped with radio receivers to receive the weather reports. At that time, there was no industry-wide custom among coastal carriers to equip their tugs with radio receivers. The court discounted this custom and said: "Courts must in the end say what is required; there are precautions so imperative (important) that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission." The statute at the time called only for a transmitting radio to call for help, but not a radio receiver to get news.
• Discuss whether or not you believe that the court was right in ruling the tugboat "unseaworthy" and thus negligent, for not having radio receivers when it was neither a statute, nor a custom in the industry to have radio receivers.
• Can this case be used as precedent for the court to rule a corporation as negligent for not providing or possessing the latest technology, such as car back up cameras and security systems to prevent data breaches?
• Do you agree that "The court must in the end say what is required" or should these types of rules be made by the legislature?