Opinion ID: 461602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purpose of 46 U.S.C. Sec. 222.

Text: 18 Crook acknowledges that Section 53 of the [FELA] bars a court from considering the decedent's contributory negligence ... if [but only if] the employer has violated a statute enacted for the safety of employees. Crook's brief at 10. The sole question before us, therefore, 5 is whether 46 U.S.C. Sec. 222, the manning statute which Crook violated, was enacted for the safety of employees such as Captain Allen. 19 The manning statute in question, 46 U.S.C. Sec. 222, provided, 6 in part, as follows: 20 No vessel of the United States subject to the provisions of title 52 of the Revised Statutes or to the inspection laws of the United States shall be navigated unless she shall have in her service and on board such complement of licensed officers and crew ... as may in the judgment of the Coast Guard be necessary for her safe navigation. 21 The Certificate of Inspection concerning the Lady Patricia called for a crew of four. When Captain Allen drowned, she had a crew of but two. Crook admits that its usual practice, despite the requirement of the Certificate of Inspection, was to use a crew of only two on the Lady Patricia. The district court found, and Crook does not dispute, that the under-manning contributed to Captain Allen's death. Crook nonetheless continually refers to the violation of this statute as technical non-compliance. Crook then tells us that irrespective of this technical non-compliance which in part caused Captain Allen's death, consideration of comparative negligence is foreclosed only if we determine initially that the purpose of the statute which Crook violated was to protect Captain Allen and others like him. Almost incredibly, Crook asserts that the manning statute reflects a concern for the safety of passengers, not crew. Crook urges us to examine Sec. 222 closely to see whether it is intended for the benefit of a ship's crew. 22 We have, and it is. The title to the Act of Congress which first provided for the inspection and licensing of steamboats engaged in interstate commerce did indicate, as Crook points out, that Congress intended to provide for the better security of the lives of passengers on board vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam. 5 Stat. 304 (1838) (emphasis added). Crook suggests that the title to the 1838 Act ends our inquiry. However, the 1838 Act did not contain the predecessor to what became 46 U.S.C. Sec. 222. Rather, the manning statute at issue here was derived from an 1871 Act. That Act, which originated as Senate Bill No. 716, was entitled An Act to Provide for the Better Security of Life on Board Vessels Propelled in Whole or in Part by Steam. 16 Stat. 446 (1871) (emphasis added). The bill was amended and discussed at some length on the House floor, but Section 14 of the Act, from which 46 U.S.C. Sec. 222 subsequently developed, was not read or discussed on the floor. Congress directed its attention in the 1871 floor debates to the general problems posed by steamships which carried both passengers and inflammable cargoes. Not surprisingly, therefore, the House debates do contain references to a concern for the safety of passengers. There are in addition, however, statements expressing a concern simply for life. See The Congressional Globe, February 16, 1871, pages 1321-1328. 7 Moreover, the 1871 Act contained in Section 8 a safety provision which required ships to carry life-preservers, axes, and the like. This safety provision did specifically refer to passengers, officers and crew. Id. at 1324. 23 This relatively sparse history does not indicate that Congress intended for 46 U.S.C. Sec. 222 to benefit passengers but not crew. Furthermore, our belief that this statute aims at protecting all life, and not just passenger life, is firmly reinforced by another court's construction of the statute and also by Congress' substantial 1983 recodification of Title 46. 24 In Texas Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 120 F.2d 186 (9th Cir.1941), the court briefly reviewed the body of Congressional safety legislation for the manning, navigation and management of vessels created to protect the lives of the members of the crew. 120 F.2d at 187 (emphasis added). 46 U.S.C. Sec. 222 was among this corpus of reviewed legislation. The court pointed out that the statutory provisions which have 46 U.S.C. Sec. 222 in their lineage contain the following language in their titles: an act for the better security of life, better protection of life, further protection of seamen, and protection of such seamen. 120 F.2d at 187 & n.1. Even before the most recent recodification, therefore, it was apparent that the manning statute which Crook violated was designed at least in part for the protection of employees such as Captain Allen. 25 In 1983, Congress undertook thoroughly to reorganize Title 46 of the U.S.C. Congress' reason for doing so was put as follows: 26 Some of the oldest and most frequently amended of our maritime laws are those administered by the Coast Guard. These laws, which are referred to in this Report as maritime safety laws, are related primarily to the safety of merchant vessels. They also cover, however, the safety recreational vessels, the protection of merchant seamen, and the protection of the environment. 27 Many of the maritime safety laws that are related to the safety of merchant vessels and the protection of seamen were codified in 1874 in titles 52 and 53 of the Revised Statutes.... 28 The purpose of [the recodification] is to revise, consolidate, and enact into positive law as a subtitle of title 46 of the United States Code (Shipping) the maritime safety laws administered by the United States Coast Guard. The ultimate aim of this legislation is three-fold: to make maritime safety and seamen protection law easier for the Coast Guard to administer, to make it less cumbersome for the maritime community to use, and to make it more understandable for everyone involved. 29 House Report (Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee) No. 98-338, Aug. 1, 1983, reprinted in 6A U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 924, 925 (Oct., 1983). The comments with respect to Section 8101--the recodification of 46 U.S.C. Sec. 222--state simply that Section 8101 provides for the required composition of the complement of licensed individuals and crew of an inspected vessel when being operated. Id. at 990. There is no indication that the provision aims solely at protecting passengers rather than crew, or that it excludes from the scope of its coverage the captains of the ships to which it extends. On the contrary, the House Reports expressly reflect a concern for the lives of crew members. See Joint Hearing of the Subcommittees on Coast Guard and Navigation, and Merchant Marine, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, April 28, 1983. Representative Young of Alaska referred to the recodification as affecting marine safety and seamen's welfare, id. at 215, and Representative Dyson of Maryland lamented the sinking of a vessel and expressed his grave concern for the health and safety of seamen on vessels. Id. at 216 (emphasis added); see also Congressional Record, August 1, 1983, H6066-6099, S11538-11570 (containing floor discussion of the recodification). 30 Our examination of the manning statute, therefore, convinces us that it was intended in substantial part to benefit employees such as Captain Allen. 31