Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/410/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:03:59+00:00

Document:
Petitioner, a longshoreman, filed a libel in rem in a Federal District Court against a ship for injuries sustained while engaged in loading the ship as an employee of a corporation which was operating it under a bareboat charter. The District Judge found that, at the time of the injury, petitioner was aboard the ship, standing on a stack of wooden pallets used in loading the ship, and that the sole cause of the injury was a latent defect in one of the planks of a pallet, which caused it to break. He held that the defective pallet supplied by the chartering corporation rendered the ship unseaworthy, and that, therefore, petitioner could recover against the ship. The corporation contended that it could not be held liable in damages to petitioner, because it was petitioner's employer, and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act provides that compensation liability of an employer under that Act is exclusive and in place of any other liability on his part.
Held: Petitioner was not barred by that Act from relying on the corporation's liability as a shipowner pro hac vice for the ship's unseaworthiness in order to support his libel in rem against the ship. Pp. 373 U. S. 410-416.
Steamship Corporation, which at the time of the accident was operating Waterman's ship under a bareboat charter and whose negligence Waterman alleged caused petitioner's injury. The district judge found that, at the time of the injury, petitioner was in the ship standing on a stack of rectangular, wooden pallets used in loading the vessel, and that the sole cause of the injury was a latent defect in one of the planks of a pallet, which caused it to break. The judge held that the defective pallet supplied by Pan-Atlantic rendered Waterman's Yaka unseaworthy, and that therefore petitioner could recover against the ship. But since the defective pallet was furnished by Pan-Atlantic, the trial judge went on to hold that it must make Waterman whole because of an indemnity clause in the bareboat charter agreement. 183 F.Supp. 69. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that neither Waterman nor Pan-Atlantic could be held personally liable for the unseaworthiness, and that a libel in rem against a ship could not be sustained unless there was an underlying personal liability to support the in rem action. 307 F.2d 203. Having previously reserved, in Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U. S. 698, 369 U. S. 700 n. 3 (1962), the question of whether personal liability is essential to the liability of a ship, we granted certiorari. 371 U.S. 938.
We find it unnecessary to decide whether a ship may ever be held liable for its unseaworthiness where no personal liability could be asserted because, in our view, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Pan-Atlantic could not be held personally liable for the unseaworthiness of the ship which caused petitioner's injury.
the unseaworthiness of a chartered vessel, [Footnote 8] and that this liability will support a libel in rem against the vessel. [Footnote 9] Since the unseaworthiness of the Yaka is no longer in dispute, the only question is whether the Longshoremen's Act prevents recovery by petitioner for Pan-Atlantic's breach of its warranty of seaworthiness.
Act from relying on Pan-Atlantic's liability as a shipowner for the Yaka's unseaworthiness in order to support his libel in rem against the vessel.
Whether a bareboat charter absolves the owner from liability on its warranty of seaworthiness is a question we also reserved in Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U. S. 698, 369 U. S. 700 (1962). We do not reach that question here.
Counsel state that an in personam complaint against Waterman was dismissed, and no appeal was taken by petitioner. But this has no relevancy here.
44 Stat. 1424 (1927), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950.
See Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U. S. 698, 369 U. S. 699-700 (1962), and cases there cited; Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty (1957), 215.
See. e.g., 81 U. S. United States, 14 Wall. 607, 81 U. S. 610 (1872); United States v. Shea, 152 U. S. 178 (1894).
Pan-Atlantic states in its brief, "Whether we call him bareboat charterer, owner pro hac vice, or demisee, it is he who is the warrantor of seaworthiness.'"
Cf. Cannella v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 174 F.2d 794 (C.A.2d Cir., 1949); Cannella v. United States, 179 F.2d 491 (C.A.2d Cir., 1950).
See, e.g., Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 358 U. S. 423 (1959).
See, e.g., Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406 (1953); Alaska S.S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396 (1954); Rogers v. United States Lines, 347 U.S. 984 (1954); Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 358 U. S. 423 (1959).
See, e.g., Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co., 355 U. S. 563 (1958); Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 358 U. S. 423 (1959); Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc., 364 U. S. 421 (1960).
Voris v. Eikel, 346 U. S. 328, 346 U. S. 333 (1953).
See S.Rep. No. 973, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1926); H.R.Rep. No. 1190, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1926).
Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 346 U. S. 413 (1953).
This decision goes further than anything yet done by the Court in FELA and admiralty cases (see, e.g., Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, and its offspring, and Gutierrez v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 373 U. S. 206) to do what it considers "justice" to those who have become the unfortunate victims of industrial accidents. For it is no exaggeration to say that, in holding that a longshoreman may recover from his own employer for injuries suffered in the course of employment, the Court has effectively "repealed" a basic aspect of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
"an employer any of whose employees are employed in maritime employment, in whole or in part, upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry dock)."
"The liability of an employer [for the compensation] prescribed in section 4 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee . . . at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death. . . ."
44 Stat. 1426, 33 U.S.C. § 905.
recover extra tort damages from third persons who negligently injured them. And while Congress imposed absolute liability on employers, they were also accorded counterbalancing advantages. They were no longer to be subjected to the hazards of large tort verdicts. Under no circumstances were they to be held liable to their own employees for more than the compensation clearly fixed in the Act. Thus, employers were given every reason to believe they could buy their insurance and make other business arrangements on the basis of the limited Compensation Act liability."
Congress, then, deliberately gave employers certain "counterbalancing advantages" in exchange for imposing on them absolute liability. If these advantages are to be discarded as purely "superficial," then the true purpose of the statute was apparently to give an additional remedy to employees while not requiring them to relinquish any existing remedies as part of the bargain. This, of course, is precisely the opposite of what Congress explicitly aimed to do.
company, cf. Alaska S.S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396, I believe that any anomaly between that case and this one should be left to Congress to remedy, for it may be that it would choose means wholly different from those chosen by the Court. There is an outer limit beyond which judicial construction of the language of a statute ought not go, and I respectfully submit that that limit has been exceeded here.
Believing that there is no basis on which recovery by petitioner can be sustained, [Footnote 2/2] I would affirm the judgment below.
The Act in § 2(3), 44 Stat. 1425, 33 U.S.C. § 902(3), defines "employee," and excludes only masters and members of a crew and those engaged to load or unload any small vessel under 18 tons net.
"To say that an owner is not liable, but that his vessel is liable, seems to us like talking in riddles. . . . In the matter of liability, a man and his property cannot be separated. . . ."
The Court also suggests that there may be another basis for recovery that is not reached, apparently on the ground that it was not properly preserved: that Waterman, the demisor, was not absolved by the making of a bareboat charter from liability for unseaworthiness arising after the demise. I see no procedural barrier to consideration of this theory as possible support for petitioner's recovery against the ship, but I do not believe it can be sustained on its merits. I agree with the court below, and with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, see Grillea v. United States, 229 F.2d 687, 690, that a demisor should not be held liable for unseaworthiness resulting solely from the equipment brought on board by the demisee's employees. An analogy may concededly be drawn to this Court's holding in Alaska S.S. Co. v. Petterson, supra, relating to the shipowner's liability for equipment brought on board by a stevedore, but I would not extend that one-sentence 6-3 per curiam decision beyond its precise facts. Cf. Gutierrez, v. Waterman S.S. Corp., supra, at 373 U. S. 216 (dissenting opinion).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 905
 v. 
 § 2
 § 902
 v. 
 v. 
 v.