Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp., Panama
| Decision Date | 08 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1575,75-1575 |
| Citation | 540 F.2d 757 |
| Parties | Joseph ANUSZEWSKI and Ronald Gutowski, Appellants, v. DYNAMIC MARINERS CORP., PANAMA, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Bernard J. Sevel, Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
Randall C. Coleman, Baltimore, Md. (Warren B. Daly, Jr., Ober, Grimes & Shriver, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, WINTER, Circuit Judge, and FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Joseph Anuszewski and Ronald Gutowski brought this action against Dynamic Mariners Corp., Panama (Dynamic) to recover damages for injuries sustained by them while working as longshoremen aboard a vessel owned by the defendant. The claims of the plaintiffs presented questions of the interpretation and application of 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), one of the 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, and the district court, after a non-jury trial, entered judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs have appealed.
Anuszewski and Gutowski were longshoremen employed by the stevedoring company, Nacirema Operating Co., Inc., which had been hired to offload Dynamic's vessel, the MS TARPONA. The offloading began on February 17, 1973, and continued through the following day. The hatch covers on the vessel were each supported by four beams which were normally locked into place by a series of pins but which were unsecured on this occasion. The longshoremen discovered the condition on February 17, 1973, and reported it to their foreman who directed them to continue their work, stating that it would be corrected. The men continued to work but the situation was not corrected. In order to offload the cargo area three of the four beams under each hatch were removed by the longshoremen but the forth was left in place but unsecured. On February 18th, while the cargo from the lower hold was being discharged the cargo boom dislodged the beam under the lower hold hatch causing it to fall into the lower hold striking and injuring Anuszewski and Gutowski.
While recognizing that the condition of the beams constituted unseaworthiness, the district judge in his opinion 1 pointed out that such a remedy was no longer available to longshoremen under the 1972 Amendment. He further concluded that Section 905(b), when read in the light of the relevant legislative history, requires that land-based principles of law apply to a longshoreman's claims for damages, and that the liability of a ship to longshoremen employed to work aboard it by a stevedoring company is no different from that of the owner of land-based property to the employees of an independent contractor employed to perform work on such property.
The legislative history clearly supports the conclusion of the district court that the 1972 Amendments eliminated the absolute and non-delegable duty of a vessel to provide longshoremen a safe place to work. On this point the House Report states:
"The purpose of the amendments is to place an employee injured aboard a vessel in the same position he would be if he were injured in non-maritime employment ashore, insofar as bringing a third party damage action is concerned, and not to endow him with any special maritime theory of liability or cause of action under whatever judicial nomenclature it may be called, such as 'unseaworthiness', 'non-delegable duty', or the like." 2
It is equally clear from the Report that while longshoremen retain the right to recover damages for negligence against a vessel, in such an action they occupy the same position as their land-based counterparts. Such intendment is manifest in the following language:
3
These...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Transportacion Maritime Mexicana
...negligence was not "actionable" under the LHWCA. Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp., 391 F.Supp. 1143, 1145 (D.Md.1975), aff'd, 540 F.2d 757 (4th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1098, 540 F.2d 757, 51 L.Ed.2d 545 (1977). Such an interpretation is plainly inconsistent with Congress' int......
-
Johnson v. A/S Ivarans Rederi
...of section 343 and implied its approval of section 343A in longshoremen's actions against the vessel. In Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp., Panama, 540 F.2d 757 (4th Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1098, 97 S.Ct. 1116, 51 L.Ed.2d 545 (1977), the court affirmed the use of section 343 i......
-
Gay v. Ocean Transport and Trading, Ltd.
...before us and have agreed that land-based principles are to guide in the establishment of a federal law. Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp.,540 F.2d 757 (4th Cir. 1976); Napoli v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 536 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1976). Moreover, those circuits have both relied upon the Restate......
-
Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co.
...supra note 25, at 4705; see, e. g., Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp. Panama, 391 F.Supp. 1143, 1146-47 (D.Md.1975), aff'd, 540 F.2d 757 (4th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1098, 97 S.Ct. 1116, 51 L.Ed.2d 545 (1977).28 See, e. g., Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp., 540 F.2d 757 (4......
-
Table of Cases
...(1991)..........................................................................................60 Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp., 540 F.2d 757 (4th Cir. 1976)...................................................................................................408 Applied Indus. Techs. v......
-
Third Party Claims
...Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan Atl. S.S. Corp., 350 U.S. 124 (1956). [118] 33 U.S.C. § 905.[119] Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp., 540 F.2d 757 (4th Cir. 1976).[120] Napoli v. Trans-Pacific Carriers Corp., 536 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1976).[121] Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santo......
-
Third Party Claims
...Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan Atl. S.S. Corp., 350 U.S. 124 (1956). [123] 33 U.S.C. § 905.[124] Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp., 540 F.2d 757 (4th Cir. 1976).[125] Napoli v. Trans-Pacific Carriers Corp., 536 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1976).[126] Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santo......