Document: 373 U.S. 410 83 S.Ct. 1349 10 L.Ed.2d 448 Elijah REED, Petitioner,v.STEAMSHIP YAKA, etc., et al. No. 509. Argued April 22, 1963. Decided May 27, Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. T. Byrne, Jr., respondents. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner, a longshoreman, filed libel in rem United States District Court against steamship Yaka to recover injuries he sustained while engaged loading vessel. The Yaka's owner, Waterman Steamship Corporation, appeared as claimant ship but brought an additional defendant petitioner's employer, PanAtlantic which at time accident was operating Waterman's under bareboat charter and whose negligence alleged caused injury. district judge found that injury petitioner standing on stack rectangular, wooden pallets used vessel sole cause latent defect one planks pallet, it break. held defective pallet supplied by Pan-Atlantic rendered unseaworthy therefore could ship. But since furnished Pan-Atlantic, trial went hold must make whole because indemnity clause agreement. D.C., 183 F.Supp. 69. Appeals Third Circuit reversed judgment, holding neither nor be personally liable unseaworthiness not unless there underlying personal liability support action. 3 Cir., 307 F.2d 203. Having previously reserved Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 698, 700 n. 3, 82 1095, 1096, 8 205 (1962), question whether is essential ship, we granted certiorari. 371 938, 318, 9 274. 2 In determining no vessel, (1) Waterman, actual made respond damages its arose after had been demised Pan-Atlantic,1 (2) have employer Longshoremen's Harbor Workers' Compensation Act,2 and, Act permits actions third person,3 provides compensation exclusive place all other his part.4 We find unnecessary decide may ever where asserted because, our view, erred 4 demisee or charterer from Waterman. Under such arrangements full possession control are up period time.5 then directed Master manned crew; makes voyages carries cargo chooses. Services performed board primarily benefit. It has long recognized law admiralty many, if most, purposes treated owner,6 generally called owner pro hac vice. doubt, indeed admits,7 that, barring explicit statutory exemption, chartered vessel,8 this will vessel.9 Since longer dispute, only prevents recovery Pan-Atlantic's breach warranty seaworthiness. 5 Seas Shipping Co. Sieracki, 328 85, 66 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946), shipowner's seaworthiness extended longshoreman injured even though employed independent contractor. doing so, noted particularly hazards marine service, helplessness men ward off perils unseaworthiness, harshness forcing them shoulder their losses alone, broad range 'humanitarian policy' doctrine seaworthiness, depend upon any kind contract. U.S., 93—95, S.Ct., ,876—877. further intended take away longshoremen traditional remedies sea, so notwithstanding availability compensation. Ten years later, Ryan Stevedoring S.S. Corp., 350 124, 76 232, 100 133 (1956), were faced with shipowner who forced pay unsafe storage stevedoring company whom worked. Even absence provision, over promised store safely. convinced arguments result economic burden longshoreman's fall contrary purpose Act. Thus, can doubt here do particular work rather than directly recovered shifted employer. Yet held, would us hold, completely denied basic protection simply vice also making argument, pointed point difference between giving relief case, acted own stevedore, hires company. either Ryan, ultimately falls default relies literal wording statute, admitted statute face lends construction. cannot now consider alone. view light case prior cases area, like others, holdings left unchanged Congress. particular, out several times Sieracki consistently followed since,10 obligation about, limited, escaped contracts rooted, contracts, work. And Ryan's negligent indemnify later some degree extended.11 body law, decisional, blind adherence superficial meaning prompt ignore fact operator such, charged traditional, absolute, nondelegable should permitted avoid. said 'must liberally construed conformance purpose, way avoids harsh incongruous results.'12 think produce result, keeping dominant intent Congress help longshoremen,13 distinguish precisely same circumstances draw others ship's service. Petitioner's need more less working As slightly different factual context, 'All subjected danger. All entitled treatment law.'14 conclude barred relying order 6 Reversed. 7 HARLAN, STEWART joins, dissenting. This decision goes anything yet done F.E.L.A. (see, e.g., Rogers Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 500, 77 443, 493 offspring, Gutierrez 372 206, 1185) what considers 'justice' those become unfortunate victims industrial accidents. For exaggeration say suffered course employment, effectively 'repealed' aspect violence scheme most shown merely quoting relevant portions two provisions govern before us. first definition 'employer' as: 'an employees maritime part, navigable waters (including dry dock.)' § 2(4), 44 Stat. 1425, 33 U.S.C. 902(4). 11 second 5, provision 'Exclusiveness liability,' states: 12 'The (for compensation) prescribed section shall employee * account death *.' 1426, 905. 13 There being 'employee' within Act,1 thus excluded recovering specifically written include shipowners dockworkers, admiralty, room concluding unseaworthiness. Indeed, clear I thought good sense argue contrary. (He instead based argument wholly theory itself part anyone.) 14 While conceding 'on support' conclusion party challenged, refuses give describes 'blind meaning' exclusiveness 'superficial' meaning, what, asked, 'true' congressional enacting legislation? design nowhere concisely accurately summarized dissenting 140, 241, 133, stated: 15 'Congress weighed conflicting interests employers struck considered fair constitutional balance. Injured thereby lost chance get large tort verdicts employers, gained right sure frequently modest recovery. However, did leave extra persons negligently them. imposed absolute they accorded counterbalancing advantages. They verdicts. clearly fixed Thus given every reason believe buy insurance business basis limited liability.' (Footnote omitted.) 16 Congress, then, deliberately gave certain 'counterbalancing advantages' exchange imposing liability. If these advantages discarded purely 'superficial,' true apparently remedy requiring relinquish existing bargain. This, course, opposite explicitly aimed do. 17 frank admit real little supra, implied contract indemnity, reimbursement stevedore judgment obtained stevedore's employee. Admittedly, similar Pan-Atantic present case. overlooked squared resting company's voluntarily assumed contractual third-party shipowner, cannot. Granting faulty equipment aboard operated company, cf. Alaska Petterson, 347 396, 74 601, 98 798, anomaly remedy, choose means chosen outer limit beyond judicial construction language ought go, respectfully submit exceeded here. 18 Believing sustained,2 affirm below. Whether absolves 700, (1962). reach Counsel state personam complaint disaction. missed appeal taken relevancy 1424 (1927), §§ 901—950. 933. See 699—700, cited; Gilmore Black, Law Admiralty (1957), 215. See. Leary Wall. 607, 610, 20 756 (1872); Shea, 152 178, 519, 38 403 (1894). states brief, 'Whether call him charterer, vice, demisee, 'is warrantor seaworthiness." Cf. Cannella Lykes Bros. 174 794 (C.A.2d 1949); States, 179 491 1950). See, Crumady Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 358 423, 79 445, 413 (1959). Pope & Talbot, Inc. Hawn, 346 406, 202, 143 (1953); 798 (1954); Lines, 984, 849, 1120 Weyerhaeuser Nacirema Operating 355 563, 438, (1958); (1959); Corp. Dugan McNamara, Inc., 364 421, 81 200, 169 (1960). Voris Eikel, 328, 333, 88, 92, (1953). S.Rep. 973, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1926); H.R.Rep. 1190, (1926). 413, 207, 2(3), 902(3), defines 'employee,' excludes masters members crew load unload small tons net. urged exist without fully agree court below (cf. 704, 1098, (dissenting opinion)) gross misapplication fiction principal modern function procedural device provide convenient forum none otherwise available. Continental Grain Barge FBL—585, 19, 23—24, 80 1470, 1473, 1540. reasons application create substantive eloquently stated Bradley, speaking City Norwich, 118 468, 503, 1150, 1162, 30 134: 'To liable, seems talking riddles. matter liability, man property separated suggests another reached ground properly preserved: demisor, absolved arising demise. see barrier consideration possible merits. below, Second Circuit, Grillea 229 687, 690, demisor resulting solely demisee's employees. An analogy concededly drawn Court's relating extend one-sentence 6—3 per curiam precise facts. Gutierrez, 216, 1191 opinion).

Category: 7