Document: 342 U.S. 282 72 S.Ct. 277 96 L.Ed. 318 HALCYON LINES et al.v.HAENN SHIP CEILING & REFITTING CORP. HAENN CORP v. al. Nos. 62, 197. Argued Nov. 27, 1951. Decided Jan. 14, 1952. Mr. Joseph W. Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for Halcyon Lines. Thomas E. Byrne, Jr., Haenn Ship Ceiling Refitting Corp. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Lines1 hired and Corporation2 to make repairs on Halcyon's ship which was moored in navigable waters. Salvador Baccile, an employee Haenn, injured aboard while engaged making these repairs. Alleging that his injuries were caused by negligence unseaworthiness its vessel, he brought this action damages against United States District On ground Haenn's had contributed injuries, as a third-party defendant. By agreement all parties, $65,000 judgment rendered Baccile paid Halcyon. Despite protest, district judge allowed introduction evidence tending show relative degree fault two parties. jury returned special verdict finding 75% 25% responsible. The refused follow determination entered accordance with conclusion there general rule governing maritime torts such under each joint tortfeasor must pay half damages. Lines, D.C., 89 F.Supp. 765. Court Appeals agreed right contribution existed case but held it could not exceed amount would have been compelled elected claim compensation Longshoremen's Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U.S.C. § 901 seq., U.S.C.A. seq. 3 Cir., 187 F.2d 403. We granted certiorari because conflicting views taken circuits existence extent can be obtained cases this.3 809, 29. 2 Where vessels collide due both, is established admiralty doctrine mutual wrongdoers shall share equally sustained each, well personal injury property damage inflicted innocent third This ancient origin has applied many cases,4 never expressly non-collision cases.5 now urges us extend allow here based upon found jury. hold no contribution, or alternative, equal division Both parties decision below limiting employer's liability those uncertain amounts recoverable Act impractical undesirable. In absence legislation, courts exercising common-law jurisdiction generally they cannot their own initiative create enforceable between tortfeasors.6 judicial attitude provoked protest inequitable compel one bear entire burden loss part someone else.7 Others defended policy refusing fashion rules contribution.8 To some affairs felt freer than fashioning rules,9 we feel free do so if wholly convinced best serve ends justice. 4 concluded unwise attempt new solution problem should await congressional action. Congress already enacted much legislation area injuries.10 For example, made unimportant determining responsibility employee; further inroads traditional court law abolition defenses contributory assumption risk creation statutory schedule compensation. turn integrated other acts Jones 41 1007, 46 688, Public Vessels 43 1112, §§ 781—790, Limited Liability R.S. 4281, amended, 181 Harter 27 445, 190—195, 190—195. Many groups persons varying interests are vitally concerned proper functioning administration Acts whole. think legislative consideration bring about fair accommodation diverse related groups. process peculiarly adapted determine possible solutions most beneficial long run. A inquiry might neither carriers, shippers, employees, nor casualty insurance companies desire change made. record before silent wishes shippers; only shows Line favor order relieve itself particular lawsuit. Apparently opposed change.11 Should convince among tortfeasors desirable, still doubt whether application limited Act,12 damages, relatively apportioned 5 view foregoing, acting field stopped short approving urged, inappropriate so. judgments reversed cause remanded instructions dismiss proceedings Haenn. 6 It ordered. 7 Reversed instructions. 8 REED BURTON reverse directions contributions fifty per cent recovered Lines refers Vinke Co., corporate owners operators involved. petitioner No. 62 respondent 197 62. American Mutual Insurance Co. Matthews, 182 322; Rothschild International Stevedoring 9 183 181. See also Slattery Marra Bros., Inc., 186 134; Spaulding Parry Navigation 257; Hitaffer Argonne 87 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 811. North Star, 106 17, 21, 41, 44, 91, traces back Rules Oleron laws Wisbuy. also, Washington, Wall. 513, 19 787; Alabama, 92 695, 23 763; Atlas, 93 302, 863; Chattahoochee, 173 540, 551—555, 491, 495—496, 801. Stevedores, Porello, 330 446, 67 847, 854, 91 1011, recognized lower federal equal-division cases. implied remand certain contingencies 'be adjudge parties' announced courts. That statement incidental compared important questions decided foreclosing full issue directly presented crucial our decision. Union Stock Yards Omaha Chicago, B. Q.R. 196 217, 224, 25 226, 227, 49 453. And see collected A.L.R. Digest, pp. 864—866, Prosser Torts (1941), p. 1113. e.g., Gregory, Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors: Defense, 54 Harv.L.Rev. 1170. George's Radio, Inc. Capital Transit 75 187, 191, 126 219, 223, dissenting opinion. James, Pragmatic Criticism, 1156. Swift Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, 339 684, 690, 691, 70 861, 865, 866, 94 1206. Compare Lottawanna, 21 558, 22 654. 10 11 supra, n. 7, 1177. 8, 1179—1180. 12 Section provides 'The employer prescribed section exclusive place employee, legal representative, husband wife, parents, dependents, next kin, anyone otherwise entitled recover from at account death, * *.' argues thereby preventing party having any where injure covered Act. find unnecessary decide question treated cited 3, supra.

Category: 7