BUZYNSKI
v.
LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ET AL.

U.S. | 1928-05-14
No. 534
277 U.S. 226 Supreme Court of the United States (1928) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 72 L. Ed. 860 · 48 S. Ct. 440 · 1928 U.S. LEXIS 876 · SCDB 1927-152
Cited by 35 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Karl Buzynski, a stevedore injured by a falling chain while loading cargo on a ship, brought an admiralty suit against the steamship owner and the contracting company that employed him, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on the ground that the contracting company could not be held liable for negligence of a fellow servant. The Supreme Court held that stevedores engaged in maritime cargo work are covered under the Merchant Marine Act's incorporation of the Employers Liability Act, which allows recovery against employers for fellow servant negligence, and therefore reversed and remanded the case for determination of whether the accident was actually caused by such negligence.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Sanford'

Mr. Justice Sanford' delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, Karl Buzynski, brought a libel in personam in admiralty in the federal District Court for Southern Texas against the Luckenbach Steamship Co., the owner of the Steamship Edgar F. Luckenbach, and the Texas Contracting Co., to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by him while working as a stevedore for the Contracting Co., an independent contractor engaged in loading cargo on the steamship while at dock in the port of Galveston. He was awarded a judgment against the two Companies jointly, 12 F. (2d) 92. This was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 19 F. (2d) 871.

Shortly after Buzynski had started to work, and while he was removing a cover from one of the hatches on the ship, he was struck and severely injured, without fault on his part, by a chain which fell from the end of the boom of a derrick at this hatch, which was used in loading the cargo. The accident was caused by the starting in motion, in a manner not shown by direct evidence, of a winch belonging to the ship which connected with and controlled the movement of the boom. The winchman who operated the winch was an . employee of the Contracting Co. and a fellow servant of Buzynski.

The District Court was of opinion that the accident resulted from a defect in the winch for which both Companies were, responsible. The Circuit Court, of Appeals was of opinibn that the evidence showed.no defect in the winch for which either of the Companies was liable, and that, although there was evidence from which it might reasonably be inferred that the accident .was caused by negligence ,of the winchman or of. another stevedore, • nevertheless the Contracting Co. would not be liable for the negligence of such fellow servant.

We granted this writ of certiorari on account of this ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals as to the negligence of a fellow servant; and no other question need be considered here.

It is settled by this Court that § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920,1 incorporated iiito the|maritime law in favor of injured “ seamen ” the applicable provisions of the Employers Liability Act2 and its amendments, and that these may be enforced either in suits in admiralty or actions at law. Panama R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 388; Engel v. Davenport, 271 U. S. 33, 35; Panama R. R. Co. v. Vasques, 271 U. S. 557, 560; Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S. 316, 324; Messel v. Foundation Co., 274 U. S. 427, 434. And in Internat’l Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U. S. 50, 52, we held That the word “seamen” as used in § 33 included a stevedore engaged in the maritime work of stowing cargo upon a vessel, and that under the applicable provisions of the Employers Liability Act, he could recover from the stevedoring company, for an injury caused by the negligence of a fellow servant.

The view of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the Contracting Co. would not be liable for the negligence of a fellow servant, was erroneous, and its judgment must be reversed. . But since it did not determine whether the accident was in fact due to such negligence, or to some other cause, the case will be remanded to that court with instructions to determine this question and take further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. See Cole v. Ralph, 252 U. S. 286, 290; Gerdes v. Lustgarten, 266 U. S. 321, 327.

Reversed and remanded.

41 Stat. 988, c. 250:

35 Stat. «5, c. 149.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1946)
    …C. C. A. 9), suggesting liability; and, to the contrary, Panama Mail S. S. Co. v. Davis, 79 F. 2d 430 (C. C. A. 3); Bryant v. Vestland, 52 F. 2d 1078 (C. C. A. 5); Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Buzynski, 19 F. 2d 871 (C. C. A. 5), rev’d on another ground, 277 U. S. 226; The Howell, 273 F. 513 (C. C. A. 2); The Student, 243 F. 807 (C. C. A. 4); Jeffries v. DeHart, 102 F. 765 (C. C. A. 3); The Mercier, 5 F. Supp. 511, affirmed, 72 F. 2d 1008 (C. C. A. 9). See in addition to the authorities cited by the Circuit Cour…
  • Maggio v. Zeitz in Bankruptcy, 333 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1948)
    …s we deal only with civil contempts. See text, p. 10. 278 U.S. at 364. 278 U. S. at 363. Cf. Kay v. United, States, 303 U. S. 1, 10; Prairie Farmer Publishing Co. v. Indiana Farmer’s Pub. Co., 299 U. S. 156, 159; Buzynski v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 277 U. S. 226, 228.…
  • O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 318 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1943)
    …employed on a vessel in rendering the services customarily performed by seamen, including stevedores while temporarily engaged in stowing cargo on the vessel. International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U. S. 50; Buzynski v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 277 U. S. 226. There is nothing in the legislative history of the Jones Act to indicate that its words “in the course of his employment” do not mean what they say or that they were intended to be restricted to injuries occurring on navigable waters. On the contra…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw