Document: 358 U.S. 423 79 S.Ct. 445 3 L.Ed.2d 413 John H. CRUMADY, Petitioner,v.THE JOACHIM HENDRIK FISSER, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, etc., Joachim Hendrik Fisser, et al. THE Petitioner, v. NACIREMA OPERATING CO., Inc. Nos. 61, 62. Argued Jan. 12, 13, 1959. Decided Feb. 24, Mr. Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa., for crumady. Victor S. Cichanowicz, New York City, and others. J. Monigan, Jr., Newark, N.J. Nacirema Operating Co., inc. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Crumady, was an employee a stevedoring company engaged in transferring cargo lumber from ship Fisser German registry to pier at Jersey. While so engaged, he injured brought this admiralty suit by libel rem against vessel. The vessel impleaded contractor. 2 When accident happened stevedores were trying lift two timbers through hatch. manner described as follows District Court: '* * libellant his fellow-employees had placed double-eyed wire rope sling, provided with sliding hook movable between eyes thereof, around location or three feet their after ends. sling then upon up-and-down boom runner signal given stevedore gangwayman winchman 'take up slack'. complied signal, during operation stood clear other forming part cargo, within open square There some testimony that when slack taken winchman, slid toward each timber which been under lower edge hatch coaming moving commencing move lay square. After same signaller called 'taking strain' runner. again responded, two-part topping-lift broke head boom, its attached blocks, fell top 4 'The rigged double purchase supporting boom. constituting extended shackle on block cross-tree mast, head, back mast block, down welded table, thence drum winch. fell, knocked down, either itself appurtenant tackle, thus sustained numerous serious permanently disabling orthopedic neurological injuries.' 142 F.Supp. 389, 391. 5 safe working load handling time tons each. This equipment, unloading loading gear vessel, good condition. winch, served 'cut off' device circuit breaker. It set shut off current application about six tons, twice gear. breaker operated perfectly, cutting point stress it set. operate slightly more than gear* employees before winch turned over petitioner's fellow operation. 6 Court accordingly found unseaworthy therefore liable petitioner. also moved effort sides 'created greatly excess load.' act be 'the primary cause parting consequent fall boom.' Since negligent bringing 'into play condition vessel,' directed indemnify damages 401. Appeals reversed, holding not sole injury negligence stevedores. 249 F.2d 818. A petition rehearing denied en banc, Judge Biggs dissenting. 821. cases are here petitions certiorari. 357 903, 78 1150, 1154. 7 1. We held Seas Shipping Co. Sieracki, 328 85, 95, 66 872, 877, 90 L.Ed. 1099 stevedores, though intermediately employed, are, performing ship's service,' entitled protection unseaworthiness members crew doing work would receive. And see Pope & Talbot Hawn, 346 406, 74 202, 98 143. is historically service.' supra, page 96, 878. 8 imposes duty owner cannot delegate. 100, 880. Unseaworthiness extends only but (Boudoin Lykes Bros. Steamship 348 336, 75 382, 99 354) appliances ship. Mahnich Southern S.S. 321 64 455, 88 561. shipowner does end supplying them; must keep them order. Id., 104, 459; Osceola, 189 158, 175, 23 483, 487, 47 760. relieved these responsibilities turning control company. Grillea United States, Cir., 232 919, themselves could render pro tanto make injuries one them. Rogers States Lines, 347 984, 849, 1120; Alaska Petterson, 396, 601, 798. need go far sustain here. For there ample evidence support finding did no bring into winch—an appurtenance inherently defective case. But adjusted those acting way made unsafe dangerous hand. rigging take stress, cutoff winch—its safety device—was limit. went use known limits. Yet limits disregarded adjusted. case different principle cable lacking test strength weight freight moved. In rope, makes unseaworthy. That theory Court; correctly applied concept unseaworthiness; findings fact clearly erroneous. McAllister 19, 20, 6, 7, 20. 9 II. majority ruled Ryan Stevedoring Pan-Atlantic Corp., 350 124, 76 232, 100 133, where entered service agreement, former indemnification all result company's breach warranty workmanlike service. Weyerhaeuser 355 563, 438, 491. facts case, chartered owners Ovido Compania Naviera S.A. Panama, agreement contract, however, mentioned name done contained 'to faithfully furnish such services.' 10 think governed announced owes goes aboard perform services plainly benefit whether vessel's parties contract not. enough zone modern law recognizes rights third-party beneficiaries. Restatement, Law Contracts, § 133. Moreover, we said 'competency stowage inescapable elements undertaken.' 237. They stevedore's 'warranty comparable manufacturer's soundness manufactured product.' pages 133—134, See MacPherson Buick Motor 217 N.Y. 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A.1916F, 696. 11 conclude since play, amounted service, may recover over. 12 judgment reversed reinstated. 13 ordered. 14 Judgment 15 HARLAN, whom FRANKFURTER WHITTAKER join, 16 should outset neither have review. No. although course important unfortunate victim accident, satisfies none criteria certiorari forth generally Rules Supreme Court, Rule 28 U.S.C.A. involves merely factual issues consequence particular litigation, being lacks even feature, right jury trial, my Brethren justify Court's reviewing sufficiency FELA, 45 51 seq., Jones Act, 46 688, cases. 62, dependent likewise belong 17 reverses Appeals, particularly fact, I court least due understandable explication reasons. 61 holds ground setting cut strain rendered lifting unseaworthy, further finds 'did play' overturns unanimous caused stevedores' improper positioning boom.* action any solid basis. My views can best pointed briefly recounting what below reversing 18 first Crumady's claim predicated alleged topping-lift, 819. concluded 'with adequate basis record,' rejected claim. Ibid. 19 hold properly primarily attributable they permitted long heavy become wedged removed, well having changed, contrary instructions, position 'incorrect procedure,' held, subjected 'excessive abnormal strain,' turn break Crumady. 819, 820—821. 20 Next, breaker, 'a new unseaworthiness' 'adopted' trial own initiative. rejecting analyzed situation follows: (1) hoisting 'rated' terms one-fifth cable; (2) involved rated tons; (3) intended utilize, both runner, strong withstand (4) power controlling proper; (5) functioned properly, 'an enormous, unanticipated' additional strain. 820. 21 light analysis record (id., 820—821): 22 'It proper active cause' equally erred next step reasoning, 'brought vessel'. seaworthiness contemplates shall reasonably fit purpose. (Footnote omitted.) Applied present facts, means electrical if reason fear running gear, activate off, subject fifteen ton capacity nothing suggests eventuality feared anticipated. Thus, proved established legal occurred.' What answer Curt now Appeals' convincingly reasoned opinion? Simply assertion because erroneous wrong 'twice limit.' muster assertion? Nothing footnote reference witnesses, without much word rejection probative value face of, among things, Coast Guard standard control, indicating (at tons) entirely proper.' Perhaps add believe unavailing Chief Biggs' suggestion liability might enunciated Learned Hand 919. contains indication incident continuous operation' beyond compass theory. 922. 24 view foregoing overriding unjustified. affirm reach, unnecessary do, indemnity issue put us 25 prevailed, am bound consider reasoning unseaworthiness. dissent. As read liability-inducing hazardous created stevedore. Here, premises, itself. premise Crumady decision nor underlying principles justifies award indemnity. Cf. 568, 441, One expert, Robert A. Simons, testified: 'I practice rig designed cut-off you apply hoist doubling for.' Another Walter Byrne, three-ton cut-offs back, allow, let say, hundred per cent overload developed, man taking away governor. You something built personnel.' Biggs, dissenting refusal appeals grant disagree findings.

Category: 7