Opinion ID: 656631
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 1972 Amendments to the LHWCA

Text: 4 Prior to 1972, vessels were strictly liable under the maritime doctrine of unseaworthiness for any injuries sustained by longshoreworkers due to unsafe on-board conditions. Although absolutely liable to the injured longshoreworkers, vessels were able to shift the cost by suing the stevedore-employers on the theory that they had breached an expressed or implied warranty of workmanlike performance. Because this system resulted in much unnecessary litigation, Congress amended the LHWCA in 1972 in an attempt to bring it into conformity with the practical realities of the maritime world. See H.R. Report No. 1441, 92 Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4698, 4702-04 (describing purpose of P.L. 92-576, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1251). 3 5 The 1972 amendments gave longshoreworkers a no-fault workers-compensation remedy against their stevedore-employers. 33 U.S.C. § 904. The amendments abolished a vessel's absolute liability to an injured longshoreworker under the unseaworthiness doctrine, but retained a statutory action against vessels for negligence. § 905(b). 4 In addition, the amendments barred vessels from seeking indemnity from the longshoreworker's employer. Id. However, an employer is defined in such a way as to exclude foreign stevedores. See § 902(4). Thus, by its terms section 905(b) does not prohibit a vessel from obtaining a recovery against a foreign on-loading stevedore and does not allocate liability between those two entities. 6 The House Report states that the result of the 1972 amendments would be to place an employee injured aboard a vessel in the same position he would be if he were injured in non-maritime employment ashore, insofar as bringing a third-party damages action is concerned. 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4703. The Report concludes: 7 Permitting actions against a vessel based on negligence will meet the objective of encouraging safety because the vessel will still be required to exercise the same care as a land-based person in providing a safe place to work. Thus nothing in this bill is intended to derogate from the vessel's responsibility to take appropriate corrective action where it knows or should have known about a dangerous condition. 8 Id. at 4704. However, Congress did not specify the conditions under which a vessel could be liable for a breach of its duty of care, but instead left this task for the courts to resolve through the application of accepted principles of tort law and the ordinary process of litigation. Id. The courts have proceeded to accept that responsibility, and this decision simply constitutes one further step in that process.