SAMMILINE CO., LTD., ET AL.
v.
WOODS ET AL.
Justice White,
with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join,
dissenting.
The Fifth Circuit held in this case that, based on its duties to longshoremen outlined in Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De los Santos, 451 U. S. 156 (1981), a vessel can be held liable under § 5(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as added, 86 Stat. 1263, and amended, 33 U. S. C. § 905(b) (1982 ed., Supp. V), for injuries to a longshoreman unloading a vessel caused by the defective stowage of cargo by an independent stevedore. 873 F. 2d 842, 846-849 (1989). As recognized by the court below, id., at 848, the Third Circuit has held that a shipowner cannot be held liable for such injuries. See Derr v. Kawasaki Risen K. K., 835 F. 2d 490 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U. S. 1007 (1988).
The Fifth Circuit also reaffirmed its holding in D/S Ove Skou v. Hebert, 365 F. 2d 341 (1966), that a standard time charter clause (providing: “‘The Captain (although appointed by the Owners) shall be under the orders and directions of the Charterers as regards employment and agency, and Charterers are to load, stow, and trim, and discharge the cargo at their expense under the supervision of the Captain. . . .’”) does not shift operational control over cargo operations, and therefore responsibility for the actions of independent stevedores, from the shipowner to the time charterer. 873 F. 2d, at 856. The court acknowledged, id., at 857, n. 18, that its reaffirmance of Ove Skou perpetuates a conflict with the Ninth and Second Circuits, which have held that that contractual language does shift operational control over cargo operations to the time charterer. See Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd., 651 F. 2d 1300, 1305-1306 (CA9 1981), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 967 (1982); Fernandez v. Chios Shipping Co., 542 F. 2d 145, 151-153 (CA2 1976).
I would grant certiorari to resolve these conflicts.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trinidad Pimental v. Ltd Canadian Pac. BUL, 965 F.2d 13 (5th Cir. 1992)…wledge of a dangerous condition and actual knowledge that the stevedore, in the exercise of “obviously improvident” judgment, has failed to remedy it. Randolph, 896 F. 2d at 970; Woods v. Sammisa Co., 873 F. 2d 842, 854 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1050, 110 S.Ct. 853, 107 L.Ed.2d 847 (1990); Helaire v. Mobil Oil Co., 709 F. 2d 1031, 1037 (5th Cir.1983). Pimental argues that the defendant knew about the oil and grease. He argues that somebody cleaned the windows in the crane housing during lunch,…
Authorities Cited
- Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. DE LOS Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1981)
- D/S OVE Skou v. Hebert, 365 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Fernandez v. Chios Shipping Co., Ltd., 542 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1976)
- Cardin v. De La Cruz, 459 U.S. 967 (U.S. 1982)
- Boston Firefighters Union v. Boston Chapter, 459 U.S. 967 (U.S. 1982)
- Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd., 651 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1981)
- Woods v. Sammisa Co., Ltd., 873 F.2d 842 (5th Cir. 1989)
- Derr v. Kawasaki Kisen K.K., 835 F.2d 490 (3d Cir. 1987)
- Suggs et ux. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 486 U.S. 1007 (U.S. 1988)
- Reed v. Smith, 486 U.S. 1007 (U.S. 1988)