Buzynski v. Luckenbach Co

Decision Date14 May 1928
Docket NumberNo. 534,534
Citation72 L.Ed. 860,277 U.S. 226,48 S.Ct. 440
PartiesBUZYNSKI v. LUCKENBACH S. S. CO., Inc., et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. W. E. Price and James W. Wayman, both of Galveston, Tex., for petitioner.

Mr. J. N. Rayzor, of Houston, Tex., for respondents.

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 Company, the owner of the Steamship Edgar F. Luckenbach, and the Texas Contracting Company, to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by him while working as a stevedore for the Contracting Company, 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. (D. C.) 12 F.(2d) 92. This was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Buzynski, 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 Company 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 opinion 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 Company 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 section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, 1 incorporated into 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, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 748; Engel v. Davenport, 271 U. S. 33, 35, 46 S. Ct. 410, 70 L. Ed. 813; Panama R. R. Co. v. Vasquez, 271 U. S. 557, 560, 46 S. Ct. 596, 70 L. Ed. 1085; Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S. 316, 324, 47 S. Ct. 600, 71 L. Ed. 1069; Messel v. Foundation Co., 274 U. S. 427, 434, 47 S. Ct. 695,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Maggio v. Zeitz In re Luma Camera Service, Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1948
    ...Farmer Publishing Company v. Indiana Farmer's etc., 299 U.S. 156, 159, 57 S.Ct. 135, 136, 81 L.Ed. 93; Buzynski v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 277 U.S. 226, 228, 48 S.Ct. 440, 441, 72 L.Ed. 860. 1 'We would hold that a turnover proceeding may not, via a fiction, be substituted for a criminal prose......
  • Seas Shipping Co v. Sieracki
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1946
    ...Bryant v. Vestland, 5 Cir., 52 F.2d 1078; Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. Buzynski, 5 Cir., 19 F.2d 871, reversed on another ground, 277 U.S. 226, 48 S.Ct. 440, 72 L.Ed. 860; The Howell, 2 Cir., 273 F. 513; The Student, 4 Cir., 243 F. 807; Jeffries v. DeHart, 3 Cir., 102 F. 765; The Mercier, D.C., 5......
  • Blackwelder v. Safnauer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • June 17, 1988
  • Rudolph v. Cuomo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 21, 1996
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE REMAND POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 96 No. 1, November 2020
    • November 1, 2020
    ...v. FDIC, 140 S. Ct. 713 (2020) (No. 18-1269), 2019 WL 6530435 (quoting Gorsuch, J.). (237) E.g., Buzynski v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 277 U.S. 226, 228-29 (1928) (reversing ruling that defendant was immune from liability as a matter of law and remanding for determination of whether defendant wa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT