Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/328/85/case.php
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 15:14:38
Document Index: 293671024

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 901', 'art, 102', '§ 189', '§ 5', '§ 458', '§ 901', '§ 901']

2. By giving longshoremen the rights of compensation afforded by the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and making them exclusive as against the employer, Congress has not withdrawn from longshoremen the protections gained under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 or other protections relating to personal injury available to them under general maritime law. P. 328 U. S. 100. chanrobles.com-red
A stevedore employed by an independent stevedoring company sued a shipowner, the contractor who built the ship, and a subcontractor for injuries sustained while working aboard the ship as a result of a latent defect in a part of the ship. The District Court gave judgment against the contractor and subcontractor, but in favor of the shipowner. 57 F.Supp. 724. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed as to the shipowner. 149 F.2d 98. This Court granted certiorari. 326 U.S. 700. Affirmed, p. 328 U. S. 103. chanrobles.com-red
The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed as to petitioner. 149 F.2d 98, 102. Accepting the District Court's conclusion chanrobles.com-red
At the outset, we may dismiss the first contention. It is now well settled that a right peculiar to the law of admiralty may be enforced either by a suit in admiralty or by one on the law side of the court. 259 U. S. 259; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239, 317 U. S. 243-244; Rhones v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.,@ 37 F.Supp. 616. [Footnote 5]
The nub of real controversy lies in the question whether the shipowner's obligation of seaworthiness extends to longshoremen injured while doing the ship's work aboard but employed by an independent stevedoring contractor whom the owner has hired to load or unload the ship. chanrobles.com-red
There could be no question of petitioner's liability for respondent's injuries, incurred as they were here, if he had been in petitioner's employ, rather than hired by the stevedoring company. That an owner is liable to indemnify a seaman for an injury caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel or its appurtenant appliances and equipment has been settled law in this country ever since The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158. Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 321 U. S. 96, 321 U. S. 99, and authorities cited. And the liability applies as well when the ship is moored at a dock as when it is at sea. See, e.g., The Edith Godden, 23 F. 43; Johnson & Co. v. Johansen, 86 F.8d 6; The Waco, 3 F.2d 476.
Obviously the norm of the liability has been historically, and still is, the case of the seaman under contract with the vessel's owner. This is because the work of maritime service has been done largely by such persons. But it does not follow necessarily from this fact that the liability either arose exclusively from the existence of a contractual relation or is confined to situations in which one exists. chanrobles.com-red
The origins are perhaps unascertainable. [Footnote 7] But that fact, in itself, may be some evidence that contract alone is neither the sole source of the liability nor its ultimate boundary. For to assume this would be at once to project ideas of contract backward into centuries governed more largely than our own by notions of status, [Footnote 8] and to exclude from the protection all who do the work of the sea without benefit of contract with the owner. It may be doubted, for example, that he has ever been able to escape liability to impressed seamen, in whose cases to speak of "contract" would only rationalize a responsibility imposed regardless of consensual relationship. And it would hardly seem consistent with the obligation's benevolent purposes [Footnote 9] chanrobles.com-red
It is true that the liability for unseaworthiness is often said to be an incident of the seaman's contract. But, in all instances which have come to our attention, this has been in situations where such a contract existed. [Footnote 10] Necessarily, chanrobles.com-red
Because rationalizing the liability as one attached by law to the relation of shipowner and seaman, where this results from contract, may have been thought useful to negative the importation of those common law tort limitations does not mean, however, that the liability is itself contractual, or that it may not extend to situations where the ship's work is done by others not in such an immediate relation of employment to the owner. That the liability may not be either so founded or so limited would seem indicated by the stress the cases uniformly place upon its relation, both in character and in scope, to the hazards of marine service which unseaworthiness places on the men who perform it. These, together with their helplessness to ward off such perils and the harshness of forcing them to shoulder alone the resulting personal disability and loss, have been thought to justify and to require putting their burden, insofar as it is measurable in money, upon the chanrobles.com-red
These and other considerations arising from the hazards which maritime service places upon men who perform it, rather than any consensual basis of responsibility, have been the paramount influences dictating the shipowner's liability for unseaworthiness, as well as its absolute character. It is essentially a species of liability without fault, analogous to other well known instances in our law. Derived from and shaped to meet the hazards which performing the service imposes, the liability is neither limited by conceptions of negligence nor contractual in character. Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., supra; 234 U. S. S. 95Á Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, [email protected] It is a form of absolute duty owing to all within the range of its humanitarian policy.
On principle, we agree with the Court of Appeals that this policy is not confined to seamen who perform the ship's service under immediate hire to the owner, but extends to those who render it with his consent or by his arrangement. All the considerations which gave birth to the liability and have shaped its absolute character dictate that the owner should not be free to nullify it by parcelling out his operations to intermediary employers whose sole business is to take over portions of the ship's work or by other devices which would strip the men performing its service of their historic protection. The risks themselves arise from and are incident in fact to the service, not merely to the contract pursuant to which it is done. The brunt of loss cast upon the worker and his dependents is the same, and is as inevitable, whether his pay comes directly from the shipowner or only indirectly through another with whom he arranges to have it done. The latter ordinarily has neither right nor opportunity to discover or remove the cause of the peril, and it is doubtful, therefore, that he owes to his employees, with respect to these hazards, the employer's ordinary duty to furnish a safe place to work, unless perhaps in cases where the perils are obvious or his own action creates them. [Footnote 12] If not, no chanrobles.com-red
such obligation exists unless it rests upon the owner of the ship. Moreover, his ability to distribute the loss over the industry is not lessened by the fact that the men who do the work are employed and furnished by another. Historically the work of loading and unloading is the work of the ship's service, performed until recent times by members of the crew. Florez v. The Scotia, 35 F.9d 6; The Gilbert Knapp, 37 F.2d 9, 210; The Seguranca, 58 F.9d 8, 909. That the owner seeks to have it done with the advantages of more modern divisions of labor does not minimize the worker's hazard and should not nullify his protection.
Every consideration therefore giving rise to the liability and shaping its character bespeaks inclusion of men intermediately employed to do this work, save only that which is relevant to consent as a basis for responsibility. We do not think this is the ultimate basis of the liability where the seaman hired by the vessel does the work. It is only the source of the relation which furnishes the occasion for the liability, attached by law to performance of the service, to come into play. Not the owner's consent to liability, but his consent to performance of the service defines its boundary. That this is given by contract with the worker's employer, rather than with the worker himself, does not defeat the responsibility. chanrobles.com-red
The conclusions are sound notwithstanding the cases are distinguishable in their specific rulings. From that fact, it does not follow that either those rulings or the grounds upon which they went are irrelevant or without force for our problem. It is true that negligence was the basis of recovery in both cases, and that, in each, the stevedoring contractor was held responsible. But it was of the gist of the jurisdictional question present by the libel chanrobles.com-red
The same underlying considerations were controlling in the Haverty decision, although the liability asserted arose under an Act of Congress and the Court cast its ruling in terms of legislative intent. The only fulcrum for its action was the statute's undefined use of the term "seamen" in conferring the right of recovery under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for the employer's negligence. 41 Stat. 988, 1007. Recognizing that, for most purposes, "stevedores are not seamen,'" [Footnote 16] and relying upon Imbrovek, chanrobles.com-red
Running through all of these cases, therefore, to sustain the stevedore's recovery is a common core of policy which has been controlling, although the specific issue has varied from a question of admiralty jurisdiction to one of coverage under statutory liability within the admiralty field. It is that, for injuries incurred while working on board the ship in navigable waters, the stevedore is entitled to the seaman's traditional and statutory protections, regardless of the fact that he is employed immediately by another than the owner. [Footnote 17] For these purposes, he is, in short, a seaman because he is doing a seaman's work and incurring a seaman's hazards. Moreover, to make the policy effective, his employer is brought within the liability which is peculiar to the employment relation to the extent that, and because, he also undertakes the service of the ship. chanrobles.com-red
It remains to consider one other argument -- namely, that the Haverty decision has been overruled, in effect, by the enactment of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act of March 4, 1927, 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., and therefore the effect of that decision as furnishing any support for including longshoremen within the owner's obligation of seaworthiness has been chanrobles.com-red
This view cannot be accepted. Apart from the fact that the Uravic decision was rendered by a unanimous Court some three years after the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act was adopted, with a like result in Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U. S. 635, [Footnote 19] the compelling answer is that Congress, by that Act, not only did not purport to make the stevedore's remedy for compensation against his employer exclusive of remedies against others. It expressly reserved to the stevedore a right of election to proceed against third persons responsible for his injury, [Footnote 20] and, in case of his election to receive compensation, it provided for assignment of his rights against third persons to his employer, binding the latter to remit to him any chanrobles.com-red
It may be added that, beyond the applicability of those considerations to sustain the stevedore's right of recovery chanrobles.com-red
The references were to McCahan Co. v. Stoffel, 41 F.2d 651, 654; Cassil v. United States Emergency Fleet Corp., 289 F.7d 4, suggesting liability, and, to the contrary, Panama Mail S.S. Co. v. Davis, 79 F.2d 430; Bryant v. Vestland, 52 F.2d 1078; Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. Buzynski, 19 F.2d 871, reversed on another ground, 277 U. S. 277 U.S. 226; The Howell, 273 F.5d 3; The Student, 243 F.8d 7; Jeffries v. DeHart, 102 F.7d 5; The Mercier, 5 F.Supp. 511, aff'd, 72 F.2d 1008.
See, in addition to the authorities cited by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 149 F.2d 102; Decision (1945) 45 Col.L.Rev. 957; (1945) 59 Harv.L.Rev. 127; (1946) 19 Tem.L.Q. 336, 339.
See, in addition to the cited opinion of Judge Brown, his opinion in The City of Alexandria, 17 F.3d 0. See also Storgard v. France & Canada S.S. Corp., 263 F.5d 5, 547, 548; The H. A. Scandrett, 87 F.2d 708, 711.
In all of the cases cited or found, except perhaps the stevedore cases cited in note 3 where the cause of action has been based upon unseaworthiness, there was a contract. The "implied warranty" on the part of a shipowner that a ship is seaworthy has been read not only into contracts made with seamen, Hamilton v. United States, 268 F. 15, 21, but also into contracts for the carriage of goods by sea, Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. The Edwin I. Morrison, 153 U. S. 199, 153 U. S. 210-211, although this liability has been modified by the Harter Act, 27 Stat. 445, 46 U.S.C. §§ 189-195, and, in rare instances, perhaps also into contracts with passengers, cf. Muise v. Gorton-Pew Vessels Co., 1938 A.M.C. 714, 718; Rainey v. New York & P. S.S. Co., 216 F.4d 9, 453; Robinson, Admiralty (1939) 306, note 109.
As to the fellow servant rule, see Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 321 U. S. 96, 321 U. S. 100-103; The Frank and Willie, 45 F.4d 4, 495, 496.
It has frequently been said that a shipowner owes to stevedores the duty of providing a safe place to work, see, e.g., The Joseph B. Thomas, 86 F.6d 8, 660; The No. 34, 25 F.2d 602, 604, but cf. Willis v. Lyke Bros. S.S. Co., 23 F.2d 488, 489, although the duty has at times been qualified by statements that it does not extend to latent defects that "a reasonable inspection by the shipowner or his agents would not [disclose]." Wholey v. British & Foreign S.S. Co., 158 F.3d 9, 380, aff'd, 171 F.3d 9.
The Court has thus created a new right in maritime workers, not members of the crew of a vessel, which has not hitherto been recognized by the maritime law or by any statute. For this I can find no warrant in history or precedent, nor any support in policy or in practical needs. chanrobles.com-red
The liability of a vessel or its owner to members of the crew, as an insurer of seaworthiness of the vessel and its tackle, was not recognized by the maritime law of England until established by statute. Merchants Shipping Act, 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80, § 5; 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, § 458. In this country, the right of the seaman to demand, in addition to maintenance and cure, indemnity for injuries resulting from unseaworthiness was first recognized by this Court in The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158. In later cases, it has been established that due diligence of the owner does not relieve him from this obligation. See The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U. S. 110, 298 U. S. 121; Socony-Vacuum Co. v. Smith, 305 U. S. 424, 305 U. S. 429, 305 U. S. 432; Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 321 U. S. 96, 321 U. S. 100, and cases cited; The Neptuno, 30 F.9d 5; The Frank and Willie, 45 F.4d 4; The Julia Fowler, 49 F.2d 7; cf. The Edwin I. Morrison, 153 U. S. 199, 153 U. S. 210.
For these reasons, the seaman has been given a special status in the maritime law as the ward of the admiralty, entitled to special protection of the law not extended to land employees. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 165 U. S. 282-283; The Arizona v. Anelich, supra, 298 U. S. 122-123; 303 U. S. 430; Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U. S. 724. See also Judge Addison Brown in The City of Alexandria, 17 F.3d 0, 394, et seq. Justice Story said in Reed v. Canfield,@ Fed.Cas.No.11,641, 1 Sumn.195, 199:
Congress has recognized this difference in their status from that of seamen. Although it has given extensive consideration to it in enacting the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., in 1927, and again, upon its revision in 1934 and 1938, in no instance did Congress extend to longshoremen and chanrobles.com-red
There are no considerations of policy or practical need which should lead us, by judicial fiat, to do that which Congress, after a full study of the subject, has failed to do. Wherever the injury occurs on navigable waters, Congress has given to longshoremen and harbor workers substantial rights to compensation against their employer for injuries chanrobles.com-red
Nor is the rule now announced to be justified as a modern and preferred mode of distributing losses inflicted without fault. Congress, in adopting the Longshoremen's Act, has chosen the mode of distribution in the case of longshoremen and harbor workers. By 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., it has given to them compensation for their injuries irrespective of fault. Section 933 provides that, if a stevedore entitled to compensation elects to recover damages against a third person, the employer must pay as compensation a sum equal to the excess of the amount which the commission determines is payable on account of the injury over the amount recovered against the third person. chanrobles.com-red
* The two cases relied upon by the Circuit Court of Appeals do not lend support to its decision. In Cassil v. United States Emergency Fleet Corp., 289 F.7d 4, recovery was sought on the ground that the vessel was negligent, and the Court merely said that there could be no claim against the vessel unless it was unseaworthy. The court seems to have assumed that a recovery for unseaworthiness could be had only if negligence was shown. See cases cited in Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 321 U. S. 96, 321 U. S. 100. In W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining & Molasses Co. v. Stoffel, 41 F.2d 651, a longshoreman was allowed recovery on the ground of negligence of one of the ship's employees.