Bill Law v. Victory Carriers, Inc., Etc., and the S.S. Sagamore Hill, Etc., Defendants-Third Party v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., Third-Party

COLEMAN, Before GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Judges. Circuit Judge: GOLDBERG, Circuit admiralty In this case we must decide post whether the -Gutierrez sufficiently expan- unseaworthiness is longshoreman moving sive embrace a point on a the dock toward operation part the total vessel as longshore- The the vessel. man, Law, plaintiff-appellant Bill 11, 1967, on December working gang of a stevedore en- gaged of the SS SAGA- HILL, MORE HILL. The SAGAMORE operated by Victory owned and a vessel Carriers, (Victory), was Inc. docked at Mobile, Port Alabama. Law’s em- Corporation ployer, Gulf Stevedore charge loading op- (Gulf), was in eration. indicates that The record as a worked years prior

ten or twelve specific The exact situs and function of days he his work On some varied. drove vessel; on board a forklift machine days on the dock as some he worked man; days up” and on some “hook he a forklift machine drove dock. day he accident was of his driv- On ing forklift machine—one employer, dock. He Gulf—on using carry a forklift alongside hook-up point 1863, 10 S. v. Waterman Gutierrez ruling the district on the motions of bun- consisted landing issue— court one considered aircraft metal-mesh dles up pick from whether a bundle mats. Law pile located extended to Law.2 pile dock —the that Law was from the vessel— concluded approximately feet along- en- point hook-up therefore was it to the and take ship, gaged and of the not taken in ship. were The mats side the scope of not directly the forklift hence that he was within vessel from onto the Having Instead, warranty set them of seaworthiness. Law would machine. point, hook-up un- of the doctrine dock at thus concluded down subsequently applicable this be taken they was not and longshoremen granted by case, of motions vessel other aboard the the court gear equip- by motion Victory and use of the vessel’s and and denied Gulf ment. of Law. transporting of contending one appeals, Law was While Law now pile holding from the of mats the bundles that he was court below erred in protection hook-up point, overhead scope came loose Agreeing machine rack of the forklift Law’s seaworthiness. causing him, allegedly in- contention, and fell on and we reverse remand. complains. juries The of which now has The of unseaworthiness doctrine commonly rack, protection overhead correctly twen- called “a child of rack,” is a metal “headache called the jurisprudence.”3 tieth-century federal the driver’s seat positioned above frame Brought by Brown’s to life Mr. Justice falling objects. protect him Osceola, 1903, 189 in famous dictum The investigation accident after Law’s 760,4 158, 483, di- U.S. 47 L.Ed. S.Ct. allegedly the four bolts revealed negligence concepts in vorced from the rack have secured were which should Co., Steamship Mahnich v. Southern missing. L.Ed. 321 U.S. and nurtured in the bosom complaint district filed a Law largely since, sympathetic judiciary injuries alleging ever experienced the doctrine has unremit- by the SA- the unseaworthiness

caused Judge ting growth negligence expansion.5 and As HILL and the GAMORE court, recently subsequently for this shipowner Coleman wrote Victory. growing against concept, complaint doctrine is a third-party “[t]he filed a " Victory constantly undergoing seeking indemnity redefinition Gulf, protected dis- en- After risks of held liable Law. larged changing by technology Victory covery filed mo- both Gulf technique.” summary judgment, to which board Dillon M. S. Orien- tions for filing Inventor, by Cir.1970, responded a cross-motion tal Law judgment. summary 979. for pass proper appliances appurtenant 2. The court did ship.” the forklift machine or not at 487. of whether 189 U.S. in fact defective. unnecessary purposes of 5. find it We opinion comprehensive this to delineate a Note, of Unseaworthiness 3. The Doctrine development historical overview Courts, 76 Harv. in Federal the Lower We unseaworthiness. (1963). L.Rev. 819 however, note, this task has been by undertaken with admirable results Brown’s four Mr. Justice The second of opinion For propositions some commentators and text writers. Court in his analyses following: example, excellent historical can “That the vessel and was the Black, English are, found Gilmore and Amer- both her owner Chapter (1957), indemnity Admiralty, law, VI for in- of Tetreault, Seamen, ican liable to an consequence juries Seaworthiness and the seamen received Rights Workers, Harbor -39 Cornell- (1954). supply keep L.Q. in order failure to L. Supreme decisions have Court Two appli- at bar. Ed.2d further extended the to the case particular relevance cability of Shipping the doctrine of unseaworthi- Co. v. Sier Seas The first longshoremen, acki, ness to 66 S.Ct. Court Supreme made clear that the doctrine Gutierrez Sieracki L.Ed. injuries question whether sustained relevance off considered Court seaworthiness, obligation tra- the vessel. The “the slipped Gutierrez on the dock on beans ditionally of a an owner owed bags spilled which had out of defective seamen,” U.S. at during longshoremen of a of beans “extends from the vessel. On these facts doing jured work independ- Court concluded that employed ship] but [the scope was within stevedoring contractor whom ent holding seaworthiness, duty “the to that load or unload the has hired to owner provide gear, seaworthy ship a 89, The ship,” at 875. id. 66 S.Ct. at cluding cargo applies containers, long- to af- in the this Court answered ship unloading shoremen whether firmative, longshoreman holding that a standing ship they pursue or on the injured could a vessel on board pier.” 215, at against 83 373 U.S. at S.Ct. remedy his for unseaworthiness 1191, (emphasis add- remedy 10 L.Ed.2d 297 shipowner his well as ed). implicit Long- The rationale this against employer his logical holding Sier- is extension of a Harbor Workers’ Com- shoremen’s and longshoreman loading seq. acki: since Act, et a pensation 901 33 U.S.C.A. § unloading doing extending seaman’s a vessel is a rationale for The Court’s longshore- incurring hazards, a seaman’s warranty to work and he entitled to seaman’s should be injured was that a vessel men board regardless protections “doing of the fact that work and a seaman’s a worker incurring hazards,” few feet landward of the water at he a id. the seaman’s to line. 880, 99, be entitled at 66 S.Ct. “regardless protections the seaman’s Although and Gutier Sieracki immediately employed the fact that he is by major constellations rez are the 99, owner,” by than the id. another present we steer our course at 880. S.Ct. case, of several must also aware we “Historically the work developments in the of admi other law unloading is the work upon ralty ultimate dis which bear service, times performed until recent First, position it of this case. well [Citing by cas- crew. members shipowner’s warran that the established es], have seeks to the owner That equip ty extends advantages of more done with the by supplied stevedore. Alaska ment does divisions of labor modern Petterson, 1954, Steamship 347 U. v.Co. hazard minimize worker’s L.Ed. af S.Ct. nullify protection.” Id. should not firming per 205 F. curiam 9 Cir. at 878. Rogers 478; v. United States 2d concluded L.

Accordingly, the Court 347 U.S. performing function 1120, reversing per “when man 3 Cir. a curiam Ed. a per board service on essential maritime see Italia Societa of his Navigazione Oregon circumstances fortuitous Steve v. Azioni di shipowner by a employment steve- Co., 1964, doring doring not determine present contractor should In L.Ed.2d 732. rights.” Id. at shipowner of his case, therefore, the measure cannot be by liability 66 S.Ct. at the mere exonerated machine fact that subsequent decision Court’s by the than rather Corp., the stevedore Steamship Waterman Gutierrez determine question will Secondly this this second swer shipowner. —and scope of the apparent harsh- he whether principle ameliorates just discussed —a of seaworthiness. principle ness assaying question, find in to a we shipowner liable this held bring ap- third- a reported two distinct for unseaworthiness approach for in- against problem. proaches the stevedore One party action injury longshoreman’s minority define view —is demnity (cid:127) —the exceedingly steve- narrow a breach was occasioned shipowner) limiting (to fashion, it to mechanical dore’s Ryan begin performance. Steve- activities which workmanlike Steamship lifting doring onto the vessel. Pan-Atlantic act Co. approach is Drum Illustrative of this theory E.D.Va.1966, Plovba, gold this is under L.Ed. 133. indemnity Drumgold disposed Victory opinion from Gulf seeks 983. The long- Finally, actions, separate note present one case.6 of two rejected specifically (Drumgold) contended shoreman who this circuit arguments (1) injured the doctrine of while that he had been equip- applies the other (Hyter) the traditional contended that ment which is gear (2) of a rejected applies only equipment is at- To con- contentions. both touching opinion, ship. vey or the These the full the court’s

tached to flavor of Judge arguments quote in laid rest in extenso therefrom: were to we scholarly Thornberry’s well-reasoned “Drumgold, and longshoreman, em- a was Barge opinion in Deffes v. Federal Shipping ployed by Rogers and Terminal Inc., 1966, 422, 5 361 F.2d Cir. Corporation, stevedore, when a denied, Grain cert. Continental Co. in At the time October Deffes, 385 17 L. question U.S. stevedore a the was application the grain Ed.2d 433. Thus the aboard the defendant’s present in the doctrine case cannot be KRAJINA, BELA the docks of (1) by equip- Cargill, defeated the fact the Inc., City Chesapeake forklift machine pursuant ment here involved —a a to contract between the product technology or —is a modern shipowner. and stevedore the As a (2) by fact duty the the forklift of the in stevedore’s the physically touching arranging stowage attached to or vessel and for the ship. grain, furnish, to se- shifting place cure and concepts boards With these relevant furnish- ship’s grain prevent ing backdrop, in hold order to turn to the funda- we shifting from while at sea. mental us: Bill before Was working had been he aboard when in the SAGA- employer received from his MORE HILL his in- orders when sustained go (stevedore) purpose juries to ashore for the on December 1967? an- Our Liability Ryan significant in- suit has not been unfortunate. result of the One generally demnity involving shifted back the steve- in land- to suits, doring company through injuries indemnity recently by the noted based company and that then an incen- Ha- has Ninth in Gebhard v. S. S. Circuit improve Legislator, tive to unload- its waiian Cir. ing equipment. (See Italia Societa 1312: per Navigazione Oregon “Although di landward extension of Azioni (1964) Stevedoring Co. 376 U.S. criticized 732; (e. g., 11 L.Ed.2d S. v. Waterman Skibinski “ Baby’: Proudfoot, Corp. (2d 1966) ‘The Tar Maritime Cir. Injury Indemnity (Judge Friendly dissenting), Actions” Personal cert. 445-46.)” (1968) (1967) 20 Stan.L.Rev. denied 975), re- 18 L.Ed.2d the overall rigged obtaining controlled Atlantic & specially Gulf Steve- truck dores, generally It is Inc. conceded that He was the stevedore. shifting operation of forklift machines on the truck with structed load pier necessary adjunct bring or dock is a the truck boards and thereafter any completing alongside or- pier in the vessel onto the ship. placed taken from There could be der that the boards stevedoring gang; being in the holds. men used the vessel and aboard Plaintiff, instructions, following vessel and 8 these on the dock. shifting boards, The of cork bales are lifted out bundles obtained two means hold and then lowered the dock where loaded same orí the truck brought sling- rigging, truck special are unfastened hooks ers, alongside pier, following and un- which the bales pier. shifting placed upon onto the loaded towmotors forklifts and boards Hyter, away. crane plaintiff, intended that the vessel’s taken pier lift the boards unhooked the hooks on of cork the bale Plaintiff, ship. towmotor, operated by the deck a fellow when longshoreman, the truck’s up use thereafter directed ran backed over purpose of mov- Hyter. and hoist boom While the condition of ing shifting the side closer disputed, boards brakes on the vessel, thereby positioning argument purpose will assume for the There is crane. under the boards were defective. brakes tending to establish evidence respective plaintiffs “The contend known, knew, have stevedore that the must truck, the defective condition Drumgold the truck be extended to Plaintiff, standing legs. its boom Hyter. They rely towmotor attempting put truck’s down Lauritzen, Spann Cir., upon F. load, stabilizing legs found lift 2d 386, den. 382 capsized, legs truck defective and Matson Huff v. water, falling a result as into the Navigation Co., Cir., 9 F.2d 338 ship’s injured. was 85 cert. U.S. 13 den. 380 the truck later to raise crane was used Barge L.Ed.2d Deffes Federal regu- truck was of the out water. Cir., Inc., larly by in connection used the stevedore den. Def- Continental Grain Co. v. but, course, operations with fes, U.S. operated pier never taken and on the 433, Metzger 17 L.Ed.2d and Kir- v. SS is some evidence aboard a vessel. There Torm, D.C.Md., sten ship’s mate de- to the effect the that They point to the also celebrated use of the clined to allow the of Gutierrez v. Waterman S.S. use crane and this necessitated the fact 83 S.Ct. truck, factor is not essen- but this Oregon and Italia Societa etc. tial to this memorandum. Stevedoring Co., U.S. 748, 11 L.Ed.2d 732.

“Hyter longshoreman and, on is a volving ter er to lantic & Gulf September having perform unloading operations contracted with Stevedores, of cork from defendant’s employed At- Inc.; the shipown- the lat- by the any merit, “* * * ship’, # manner the ^[*] if the They engaged warranty (cid:127)* urge, longshoreman ‘in # and not without the service of seaworthiness ^{[*] [*]} is vessel, applies anywise YOZGAT, is con- such service SS docked at while contemplated B, Norfolk, Virginia. Northside, or Pier nected the with contemplated pier job slinger removal from the on the already pier and, apron engaged such, plain- while as stowage purpose by allegedly a warehouse tiff was struck defective an purpose. owned, any transfer operated or for other and which was ship’s duty deciding to load attendant to the “Assuming the cor- without rulings Spann, assumption Huff, unload. If such incorrect is rectness constantly be confronted with Deffes, not of we will this Court is alleging claims doctrine opinion seaworthiness cargo, example, load- vessel because of about to be For so can extended. ship, technically ed aboard which falls in a ware- longshoreman thereby injuring pier house if he is instructed stevedoring going employee of the In purpose concern. a truck take Drumgold we do not rope believe city or wire to secure a into insofar, operation, the war- as in connection with concerned, ranty . of seaworthiness particular operations aof or shifting commenced until boards While so brakes being physically and, at defective the truck become vessel, moved from the stevedore’s truck to the point many miles Hyter In unload- deck. we feel that longshoreman injured by of an reason ing terminated, argue insofar Plaintiffs concerned, when render defective brakes would truck’s seaworthy unseaworthy. effect, bale cork in a condition what vessel slingers properly detached plaintiffs do is to extend wish pier awaiting at rest on the re- injured all the benefits It accruing moval another area. these seaman points Texaco, Hopson of seaworthi- the Jones Act. See: stopped. started hold- ness Such a Inc., L. ing Gutierrez, Huff, does no violence Ed.2d Spann, Deffes, Metzger, relied all long- injury “In Gutierrez the upon plaintiffs. merely places slipped sustained shoreman was when upon a reasonable limitation the extent spilled on occa- on loose beans the dock warranty.” F unseaworthy condition of sioned .Supp. 984-985, (footnotes 986-987 aboard the omitted). during unloading spillage oper- resultant judice In the case sub the district agree clearly that Gutierrez ations. We court embraced the narrow definition of extends the seaworthiness “loading.” The final order entered ‘loading unloading’ a following the court below included the whether aboard language: not, however, pier. We do find that presented “[T]he loading operation Drumgold had com- long- Court for is decision whether a we further menced —and find that cargo removing shoreman from stor- Hyter operation in termi- age by operating to dockside a forklift respective longshore- nated —when the performing ship’s machine is work injured. Manifestly items men seaworthy and therefore entitled to a giving injuries equipment of rise to the vessel. After careful of consideration were never intended to used aboard applicable law, the facts and the they were, best, conveyors ship; mere plaintiff, Court concludes Bill bring equipment ship’s needed to the Law, engaged in was not work (Drumgold), already side or to remove ship and not covered cargo (Hyter). unloaded another area of seaworthiness. authority find no cause We which would every piece equipment us hold “The Court’s conclusion is based every activity leading up plaintiff’s the ‘status’ and not to or fol- work lowing loading unloading opera- injury. or his situs the time cargo positioning tion must be covered under the in turn loaded seaworthiness. are which would be We concerned cargo ship ship’s equipment The- and the onto vessel. loading plaintiff’s operation. directly loaded from In the immediate plaintiff ease, plaintiff loading did the assist in forklift nor was not car- cargo go into the hold aboard the vessel in the sense of sense, simplest ‘ship’s theory In the the vessel. work’ of recov- bringing doing ery against all the defendant for unsea- cargo loaded on the to the dock worthiness must fail.” a truck driver who vessel. Would apparent thus is the district dock in his truck and un- drives to the court concluded that Law was not “load- freight turn be- loads which in will ing” the SAGAMORE HILL because his entitled to come vessel be job moving landing the aircraft mats — seaworthy truck vessel? Would his hook-up point adjacent to the to the ves- ship? appurtenance be an preceded sel—entailed activities which True, plain- thinks not. Court lifting the actual act of the car- the vessel tiff’s association with go onto the vessel. loading operation prevalent view, The more however, is hypothetical present- is closer than the found in cases which define the terms above, seaworthi- ed but to extend the “unloading” in a more plaintiff’s work ness doctrine to pragmatic and less ritualistic sense. Il- the doctrine to would also extend Byrd lustrative of these cases is of situations unlimited number Export American Isbrandtsen intended. was never Inc., E.D.Pa.1969, F.Supp. actu- was not us, Byrd Like the case now before the time al vessel at injury volved an to a en- say easy It is gaged moving cargo by means of a assisting contributing point machine from one on' the aboard the point dock to another nearer the vessel. apply But the same rationale can The court held that persons perform innumerable operation was involved in required work at the injury. vessel time of his We duty. to ‘service’the for sea The quote opinion: the court’s liability unlimited. summary “This a motion for A line must As stated be drawn. judgment filed ship- the defendant Knudsen, Daniel v. Hilda Skibs A/S longshore- owner in this action affirmed 368 man. Defendant contends that (3rd 1966): C.A. plaintiff’s deposition conclusively es- plaintiff’s ‘While have work plaintiff’s tablishes that the accident unloading process contributed to the could have only by been occasioned ei- philosophical sense, in a it was not possible ther of two causes and that unloading in the sense that it was a responsible defendant was not for ei- work. We ther cause. aware that the recent trend deci- deposition “Plaintiff’s discloses that in the Su- sions in this Circuit and Givens, longshore- he and Otis another preme Court has been to widen man, engaged attempt were in an to coverage. ambit move from the back to the front of However, end to there has be pier, truck, the a forklift which was unloading process somewhere intended to loaded be aboard defend- liability imposing in the sense of cargo. ant’s attempt vessel as ship’s work.’ by backing up was undertaken another certainly ap- truck, “The statement above identified as No. plies loading as well prospective cargo, as so that the just ship; as latter could towed be forward. As unloading, plaintiff there must an end to the be bent down between the two beginning there must rope, be trucks to attach tow No. load- work constituted which catching plaintiff between up, backed Weyerhaeuser ing.’ Litwinowicz know does the two. F.Supp. Co., Steamship time at was Givens Otis where (E.D.Pa.1959). says last 817-818 injured, but plaintiff was getting No. off Givens observed plaintiff conclude that “Since gear No before engaged essentially in a was was which No. attached was using equipment operation and was Stevedores, & Gulf Atlantic purpose, was for that which Inc. adopted temporarily least if even No. asserts “Defendant ship, must be motion the defendant’s plaintiff Giv- into 947 was backed (foot- denied.” plaintiff because rolled into ens or omitted). note condition, de- defective of some see, vein, holdings in a similar For other liable, held be because cannot fendant Legisla e.g., Hawaiian v. S. S. Gebhard plaintiff activity which Thomp 1303; tor, 9 Cir. yet was, pier engaged on the then Steamship 3 Cir. Calmar son v. ship. operation of the denied, 379 U. 331 F.2d must, concedes, it “Defendant 184; whether the acci- it immaterial Hagans v. Ellerman Bucknall Steam & away pier from dent occurred Co., cf. 3 Cir. ship, was ac- S.D.Tex.1968, Michalos, Olvera v. engaged tually F.Supp. 9. loading opera- includes Steam- v. Waterman tion. Gutierrez align ourselves We choose to ship Corporation, 83 S. “loading” the cases define (1963); Ha- 10 L.Ed.2d 297 Ct. “unloading” sense in a realistic gans v. Ellerman Bucknall Steam- & hyperteehnical terms of rather than as (3 Cir.1963). ship Co., 318 F.2d 563 plaintiff art. It seems to us that Law clearly engaged in unduly “We that defendant believe any HILL under conven SAGAMORE ‘loading’ delimits the term to the ac- interpretation of that He tional term. cargo tual transfer longshoremen group of of a pier front of the the vessel. operation total were backing of No. intended moving from the to the ves cargo and the endeavor to attach longshoremen sel. Some of the involved rope tow between the vehicles were operation were on board the ves steps concomitant and essential sel, others dock. The while were loading operation. ship-side efforts both workers “As this in a Court stated simi- and the shore-side workers neces lar situation in which the defendant ship. sary to load the it We think merely pre- claimed that incongruous capricious would be paring loading, when he deny protection of placing ‘chocks’ un- while prior der a draft of steel beams granting longshoremen to his fellow being their vessel: hoisted aboard the happened whose duties to involve activi ties on the vessel or the actual term ‘The is not a word lifting ship. onto the act art, narrowly and is not to deny To him the benefits interpreted. hypertechnically Plain- circum these tiffs’ actions at the time the acci- reject the humani stances would direct, necessary steps in dent were policy tarian underlies the doc transfer steel subjected to the risks trine. Law was from the railroad car into the vessel ship;7 he ON FOR PETITION REHEARING and hazards protections AND PETITION FOR REHEAR- likewise receive should ships. EN BANC ING load afforded course, holding, we decide In so PER CURIAM: not at- us and do the case before Rehearing The Petition for denied tempt anticipate panel Judge and no member of this nor in example, dowe For the future. arise regular active service Court hav- position unsuc- riot take the —asserted ing requested polled that the Court be Drumgold cessfully by plaintiffs rehearing (Rule banc, en 33 Federal Plovba, supra —that Procedure; Appellate Rules Local many truck who is instructed to drive a 12) Fifth the Petition Circuit Rule em- miles inland on a mission Rehearing En is denied Banc scope ployer necessarily If such of seaworthiness. future, case is to arise in the then, be decided not now. We do an accident oc- not have here

curring pastor- some urban enclave pasture pier.

al from the far removed contrary, activities had On Law’s COMPANY, & BABCOCK WILCOX continuity job proximity to and with the Assignee of the Interference Parties loading cargo at hand —the task Dungey Frendberg HILL. His SAGAMORE job specific performance was inte- so CORPORATION, FOSTER WHEELER grally op- entire woven into the Assignee the Interference Parties separated eration be cannot two Gorzegno, Pai, Appellant. Weber & except by hyperteehnical erection No. 19087. legal If and unrealistic barriers. “unloading” terms are to Appeals, United States Court of reality terms associated with rather Third Circuit. conceptual mere than microcosms with- Aug. 25, Argued adjuncts beyond beam, out 14, 1970. Sept. Decided have no choice but to conclude that Rehearing Denied Oct. Law was HILL. SAGAMORE We therefore hold that on the facts of this case —a

longshoreman, intimately involved in the as he moved the back the front was within the dock — scope of seaworthiness.

Since we have concluded that the doc- applica- trine of here ble, plaintiff op- must afforded the

portunity prove truth of his alle- gations. We therefore remand the ease proceed-

to the district court for further

ings opinion. consistent with this

Reversed and remanded. Seaworthiness, enlightening 7. For discussion of Risk Distribution (1966). longshoremen, Note, risks incurred see Yale L.J. 1174

Case Details

Case Name: Bill Law v. Victory Carriers, Inc., Etc., and the S.S. Sagamore Hill, Etc., Defendants-Third Party v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., Third-Party

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Nov 3, 1970

Citation: 432 F.2d 376

Docket Number: 28451_1

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.