Law Commons^™

Admiralty- Shipowner's Right To Indemnification For Loss Caused By Latently Defective Gear Supplied By Nonnegligent Stevedoring-Compnay, John W. Erickson

Michigan Law Review

Defendant stevedoring company contracted to perform stevedoring services for plaintiff shipowner. Pursuant to its agreement to supply gear for the job, the stevedoring company supplied a latently defective rope, the breaking of which caused injury to a longshoreman, an employee of the stevedoring company. The longshoreman obtained a judgment against the shipowner under the doctrine of unseaworthiness, and in a separate action the shipowner sought indemnification from the stevedoring company. The district court, finding the stevedoring company not negligent, denied recovery. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. On certiorari to the United States Supreme …

Admiralty--Liability--Transitory Unseaworthiness, Richard Delamielleure

Michigan Law Review

While loading grain aboard a ship, the petitioners, longshoremen, were injured when they inhaled noxious fumes from a shot of grain released into the vessel's hold, the grain having been treated with a chemical insecticide by unknown parties at an inland point. Petitioners brought suit against the city, which owned the grain elevators, and the shipowner, alleging, among other things, that the vessel was unseaworthy. The district court found the ship to be seaworthy, and the circuit court of appeals affirmed the judgment for the defendant. On certiorari the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the …

Longshoreman-Shipowner-Stevedore: The Circle Of Liability, Harney B. Stover, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

It is universally recognized that in the past two decades the United States Supreme Court has substantially revised the law under which seamen, longshoremen and harbor workers (or their survivors) may recover damages for personal injury and death. One of the more recent and most authoritative texts in the field of admiralty and maritime law devotes an entire chapter, 147 pages in length, to the subject of the rights of seamen and maritime workers (or their survivors) of recovery for injury and death. The introduction to that chapter likens the Court's rewriting of the law in this field to a …

Duration Of Seamen's Maintenance And Cure Rights, Howard S. Stern

Cleveland State Law Review

It is well settled that an injured or disabled seaman is entitled to "maintenance and cure" at the expense of the owners of his vessel at least until the end of the voyage,' provided that the need therefor exists that long. The minimum limits of this liability are fixed and certain, and have been so for over fifty years. The more important problem concerns the maximum limit of liability. Stating the problem in the form of a query: At what point does liability for maintenance and cure cease? On this point there is wide divergence of opinion. One of the …

The Seaman As Ward Of The Admiralty, Martin J. Norris

Michigan Law Review

The seaman has a peculiar status in American law. He is in most instances a mature individual, sui juris, and therefore capable of entering into his own contracts but nonetheless his contractual dealings with shipmasters and owners are as carefully watched by our admiralty courts as though he were a minor or a young heir. He is in contemplation of the maritime law a ward of the admiralty courts.

The seaman's position in a legal and economic sense is unique. Singled out by the Congress of the United States as one of a class of workers requiring special consideration …

Admiralty - Exclusive Coverage By Longshoremen's And Harbor Workers' Act Of Railway Employer's Liability To Employee For Accident On Car Float, Richard B. Barnett S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Respondent, a freight brakeman employed by petitioning railroad at its Jersey City yards, was injured while releasing the hand brakes on a freight car which was being pulled off a car float docked in navigable waters. He brought suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, alleging that his injury was caused by a faulty brake mechanism maintained in violation of the Safety Appliance Acts. The suit was dismissed in the district court on the ground that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act applied exclusively, because the injury occurred on navigable waters. The court of appeals reversed, holding that this act …

Admiralty-Unseaworthiness Of Vessel In Having Vicious Crew Member Aboard, Richard B. Barnett S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, a seaman on board defendant's ship, went ashore on leave with the second cook. After returning to the ship, the two quarrelled and plaintiff knocked the cook down. The cook went to the galley and obtained a meat cleaver with which he struck plaintiff on the head, causing serious injury. Plaintiff brought suit against the ship owner for damages on the theory that in allowing a man of the cook's vicious proclivities to become a member of the crew, defendant failed to provide a "seaworthy" ship and that plaintiff had suffered injury as a result. Plaintiff appealed a verdict …