Opinion ID: 1507617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability of Seas Shipping Co., Inc.

Text: There are two parts to the argument for the plaintiff with regard to liability of the ship owner. The first is based on negligence. The trial judge found the ship owner free from negligence and we agree with him. If there is any liability for negligence upon Seas Shipping Co. it must be because of some failure to inspect this shackle at the time it received the ship from the Maritime Commission. During the period between its receipt and the accident the shackle, as well as other parts of the ship, was properly cared for and inspected visually. But the fact was found, and we agree with the finding, that the most meticulous visual inspection would not have disclosed any defect. The Seas Shipping Co. is not guilty of negligence, therefore, unless it failed to use due care to discover the defect in this shackle. It could not have found it by visual inspection. Doubtless it could have been discovered had the owner torn down the various pieces of apparatus on the ship and subjected them to the sound test or the x-ray test or any other test which might have disclosed the defect. We do not think that reasonable care required such effort on the part of the owner. The master of the ship was present when the lifting test was made. The owner purchased the ship from the Maritime Commission which, in turn, had contracted for its construction with a reputable manufacturer. We do not think the buyer, under these circumstances, is required to tear down the thing bought and subject it to independent tests in order to be exercising due care. One can hardly picture the buyer of an automobile taking it to pieces and testing its various component parts to see whether it is safe for an employee to drive. Nor do we think the ship owner is required to either. We agree with the trial judge, therefore, that there was no showing of want of reasonable care on the part of the ship owner. This leaves us with the last and most difficult question in the case. Granted that no negligence on the part of the ship owner has been shown, is the owner, nevertheless, liable to this longshoreman because the defective shackle made the vessel unseaworthy? The District Court found as a fact that the accident occurred by reason of the unseaworthiness of the vessel. We think it is undisputed that if the falling boom had hit one of the sailors the injured seaman could have recovered from the ship's owner, or the ship, on the basis of breach of warranty of seaworthiness, that warranty not being dependent upon a showing of negligence at all. Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co., 1944, 321 U.S. 96, 64 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.Ed. 561; The H. A. Scandrett, 2 Cir., 1937, 87 F.2d 708. Is the longshoreman entitled to this same protection? It is clear that so far as the warranty depends upon contract, plaintiff was not a party to a contract with the shipowner. He was employed by the independent stevedore contractor. This does not necessarily settle the question. The term warranty used in this connection is a term used to describe a resulting legal liability, not to give a reason for it. The legal liability is not based upon fault, but is in the nature of insurers' liability, rooted in the admiralty law. What, then, are the reasons for and against the application of the protection against injuries from unseaworthiness to one engaged in loading and stowing a ship's cargo? There is no question that in fact such service is necessary in the performance of the business of the ship. Formerly the work was done by the ship's crew, but owing to the demand for rapidity and special skill it has become a special service, one which has been called as clearly identical with maritime affairs as are the mariners. And so an injury to a stevedore comes within the classification of a marine tort. Atlantic Transport Co. of West Virginia v. Imbrovek, 1914, 234 U.S. 52, 34 S.Ct. 733, 58 L.Ed. 1208, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 1157. It seems, therefore, that when a man is performing a function essential to maritime service on board a ship the fortuitous circumstances of his employment by the ship owner or a stevedoring contractor should not determine the measure of his rights. This is the very basis on which the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, was held applicable to give redress to an injured stevedore in International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 1926, 272 U.S. 50, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157, commented upon in 27 Col.L.Rev. 211. See also Uravic, Administratrix v. F. Jarka Co., Incorporated, et al., 1931, 282 U.S. 234, 51 S.Ct. 111, 75 L.Ed. 312. On the other hand, the stevedore loading or unloading a ship has only temporary employment thereon and he is a stranger to the contract between his employer and the ship owner. In so far as peculiar obligations imposed by the admiralty law for the seaman's protection rest upon the fact that the men are bound to the vessel for the remainder of the voyage, the stevedore does not fall within the reason for the protection given. Thus an injured employee of the contracting stevedore has been denied recovery for maintenance and cure. C. Flanagan & Sons, Inc. v. Carken, Tex.Civ.App., 1928, 11 S.W.2d 392, commented upon in 42 Harv.L.Rev. 820. It seems to us that the weight of the argument favors an extension of the protection to the stevedore's employee during the period when he is actually engaged upon a ship in the loading or unloading thereof. He is working in marine employment and is subject to all its risks for the time being. The fact that the exigencies of modern commerce have called in additional help for loading and unloading does not make the undertaking any less a marine transaction and rightly subject to the rules of law for the protection of workers who take the risks of such transactions. We do not hold that a stevedore is entitled to everything that a seaman may claim. All we are deciding now is that if he is injured on the ship in the course of unloading or loading the vessel he may have redress for a defect caused by its unseaworthiness. We have found no decision which gives consideration and discussion to the point now before us. There are statements and assumptions each way. In W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining & Molasses Co. v. Stoffel, 3 Cir., 1930, 41 F.2d 651 Judge Woolley says, page 654, The law regards a longshoreman or stevedore, injured while engaged in maritime service aboard a ship lying in navigable waters, as a seaman with all his peculiar rights and immunities. In Cassil v. United States Emergency Fleet Corporation et al., 9 Cir., 1923, 289 F. 774, 775, the court says that a stevedore, injured while loading a ship could hold the owner of the vessel only on the theory that the vessel was unseaworthy in respect to the instrument whereby his injuries were occasioned. On the other hand, there are a number of decisions in which it is either assumed, or stated, without discussion or elaboration, that the duty owed by the ship owner to the employee of the stevedore is only that of reasonable care. In other words, the responsibility is the same as that of any occupier of premises toward a business guest. Panama Mail Steamship Co. v. Davis, 3 Cir., 1935, 79 F.2d 430 (in this case the standard of reasonable care as a measure of duty was agreed upon by both sides); Bryant v. Vestland, 5 Cir., 1931, 52 F.2d 1078; Luckenbach S. S. Co., Inc., et al. v. Buzynski, 5 Cir., 1927, 19 F.2d 871, reversed on another ground, 1928, 277 U.S. 226, 48 S. Ct. 440, 72 L.Ed. 860; The Howell, 2 Cir., 1921, 273 F. 513; The Student, 4 Cir., 1917, 243 F. 807, certiorari denied, 1917, 245 U.S. 658, 38 S.Ct. 14, 62 L.Ed. 534; Jeffries et al. v. DeHart, 3 Cir., 1900, 102 F. 765; The Mercier, D.C.Or. 1933, 5 F.Supp. 511, affirmed, 9 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d 1008. It will be observed that the numerical weight of decision in the lower federal courts seems against the view here expressed, although, as stated above, the point has been assumed rather than concluded as a result of the examination of principle and precedent. The logical trend of the Supreme Court authority is, we think, in favor of extending to the stevedore the rights of a seaman when engaged in marine employment. On principle we think he should have these rights, at least, to the extent called for by the facts of this case and we so decide. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed as to the Bethlehem companies, No. 8706, and reversed as to Seas Shipping Co., No. 8722.