Document: 355 U.S. 563 78 S.Ct. 438 2 L.Ed.2d 491 WEYERHAEUSER STEAMSHIP CO. Petitioner,v.NACIREMA OPERATING CO., Inc. No. 75. Argued Jan. 6, 1958. Decided March 3, Mr. William Garth Symmers, New York City, for petitioner. Leavenworth Colby, Washington, D.C., the United States, as amicus curiae. Patrick E. Gibbons, respondent. Justice CLARK, delivered opinion of Court. 1 The question here involves right to trial by jury under principles maritime liability enunciated in Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 1956, 350 124, 76 232, 100 L.Ed. 133. Respondent, a stevedoring company, contracted furnish petitioner, shipowner, with services and longshoreman employed respondent was injured while unloading petitioner's vessel. When sued petitioner on claims negligence unseaworthiness, impleaded respondent, claiming indemnity any damages might recover. main case, involving longshoreman's claims, submitted jury, which found issue seaworthiness. That judgment has since been satisfied is not before us. After receiving verdict, judge decided that it also dispositive third-party action, directed verdict A divided Court Appeals affirmed, Cir., 236 F.2d 848, we granted certiorari. 1957, 352 1030, 77 596, 598. Petitioner contends, inter alia, certain issues fact should have jury. We agree this point. Petitioner's claim primarily rests contractual relationship between While contract contained no express clause,1 obligated 'to faithfully such may be required,' provide all necessary labor supervision 'the proper efficient conduct work.' As said supra, language constitutes 'a undertaking (perform) 'with reasonable safety," U.S., at page 130, 235, discharge 'foreseeable resulting shipowner from contractor's improper performance.' 129, footnote 235. contends breach caused injury longshoreman, 'foreseeable.' 3 F. Weyerhaeuser, vessel upon accident occurred, had sailed West Coast cargo lumber Boston, ports where perform operations. arrived January 25, 1952, ensuing five days deck load part underdeck discharged. On 30 ship left York, arriving Boston next day. Respondent's crews boarded continued. fifth day operations one Connolly, when struck head piece wood working lower hold. parties must fallen into hold top temporary shelter protected winch drivers elements. 4 evidence indicated shelters are customarily erected longshoremen beginning their They consist scrap framework tarpaulin stretched across top. Because flimsy construction they considered hazard winds sea, 'automatically' torn down ship's crew leaves port. Both captain second officer Weyerhaeuser testified would carelessness allow remain place goes sea. need discuss details led find Connolly but implicit finding structure Boston.2 through its employees stationed built harbor,3 assume failed remove leaving Boston. record silent exact circumstances made available It does appear, however, used respondent's employees, spite well known journey possible effect an already structure. There inspected either party until after arrival Boston.4 5 believe obligation duties safety related only handling cargo, Ryan, use equipment incidental thereto, involved here. American President Lines, Limited Marine Terminals 9 234 753, 758; States Arrow Co., 175 329, 331. If regard rendered substandard performance5 foreseeable latter entitled absent sufficient preclude recovery. bearing these issues—petitioner's action making although apparently unsafe,6 continued thereafter without inspection—was consideration appropriate instructions. These were encompassed instructions maincase, test based failure nondelegable duty Connolly. Since depended different principles, Crawford Pope & Talbot, Inc., 206 784, 792, case.7 Further, did ipso facto recovery indicated, owing identical those 'guilty some act negligence,' ultimate predicated, or correct warn latent dangerous condition began unloading. Likewise, predicated during inspect shelter, detect unsafe condition. Although possibilities could basis recovery, least not, prevent action. pages 134—135, 237—238. See Cornec Baltimore O.R. 48 497, 502; Woven-Hose Rubber Kendall, 178 Mass. 59 N.E. 657, 51 L.R.A. 781 (opinion Chief Holmes). improper, therefore, court direct 6 In view new entitled, sound judicial administration requires us point out area application theories 'active' 'passive' 'primary' 'secondary' inappropriate. 132—133, 236—237. 7 reversed case remanded proceedings conformity opinion. so ordered. 8 Judgment directions. See, generally, Weinstock, Employer's Duty Indemnify Shipowners Damages Recovered Harbor Workers, 103 U. Pa.L.Rev. 321, 332—346 (1954). being instructed follows: 'Now, if you structure, is, came offered stevedores work with, permitting there guilty I defined you, then Connolly.' undisputed assembled prior removal York. witness he stood winches permit top, approximately seven feet above deck, discovered secured two loose pieces similar noted thar '(t)he shipowner's changed tort simply because turn standard performance service.' 134, 237. Corbin, Contracts, §§ 571, 947, 1264; cf. Restatement, 295, 315. following explanation charge suggests intended submit return case: 'I shall ask go consider against Steamship Company first come back your retire again suit, namely Nacirema Operating Company, give apply peculiarly that.'

Category: 7