Harmon v. Baltimore and Ohio R. Co.

Citation560 F. Supp. 914
Decision Date20 April 1983
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 82-3093.
PartiesJohn F. HARMON, Plaintiff, v. The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

J. Michael Farrell, Philadelphia, Pa., Kurt C. Rommel, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

George F. Pappas, H. Russell Smouse, Thomas L. Samuel, Baltimore, Md., Walter J. Smith, Jr., Washington, D.C., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

GESELL, District Judge.

Plaintiff in this case was employed by defendant as a carpenter-foreman and maintenance-of-way employee at defendant's Curtis Bay Coal Pier, in Baltimore, Maryland. The sole function of the Coal Pier was the unloading of coal from railroad cars onto seagoing barges and vessels. On March 14, 1981, plaintiff was injured in the scope of his employment. He now seeks to sue his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51. Defendant seeks summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff's injury falls under the Federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.1 If plaintiff's injury is covered by the LHWCA, his exclusive remedy lies in receipt of benefits under that Act and defendant cannot be liable under the FELA. No material fact is in dispute and the Court finds that summary judgment must be granted the defendant as a matter of law.

The LHWCA provides compensation for employee disability or death,

... but only if the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel).

33 U.S.C. § 903(a).

An employee is defined as

... any person engaged in maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harborworker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and ship-breaker ....

33 U.S.C. § 902(3).

Thus, to be covered by the LHWCA, an injured employee must meet both a "situs" and a "status" test. P.C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U.S. 69, 73, 100 S.Ct. 328, 332, 62 L.Ed.2d 225 (1979). It is undisputed by the parties that plaintiff's injury meets the situs requirement of having occurred "upon the navigable waters of the United States." The sole issue for decision is whether plaintiff's employment also meets the status test, that is, whether plaintiff was "engaged in maritime employment" at the time of the accident.

At Curtis Bay Coal Pier, coal is unloaded from railroad cars onto oceangoing vessels through a highly specialized process. Upon arrival, railroad cars loaded with coal are placed on one of ten tracks at the Curtis Bay facility. Electric side arms push groups of cars along the tracks to retarders which halt them. A spotter arm attaches itself to the cars and pulls them still further along the track, allows the cars to halt so that an employee can disconnect the cars from each other, and then pulls each individual car further to a dumper. A dumper operator turns the car over at a sharp angle so that the coal empties through a series of grids designed to break up lumps and passes through one of three hoppers, or funnels, onto a feeder belt. The coal proceeds from the feeder belt onto a larger conveyor belt which in turn drops it into a telescopic chute leading to the hold of the barge or ship.

It is undisputed that at least half of plaintiff's employment duties consisted of the maintenance and repair of all fixed structures involved in the coal-loading process described above. In addition, plaintiff spent considerable time performing and supervising carpentry and maintenance work on other buildings and structures in the Curtis Bay Coal Pier yard. His injury occurred while he was repairing one of the hoppers, or funnels, through which coal is dumped on its way to the hold of ships. Coal is abrasive and the hoppers are lined with steel plates, or liners. Plaintiff was transporting new liners to replace the old, worn ones when he was injured.

In Pfeiffer, supra, and Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 265-279, 97 S.Ct. 2348, 2357-2365, 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977), the Supreme Court has read the term "maritime...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Crowe v. CSX Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 28 Agosto 2019
    ...it the concept of manifestation. Because Mr. Crowe is covered by the LWHCA, it follows that benefits under the act are the sole remedy.In Harmon, supra , a worker employed by a railroad company sustained a physical injury while working on a coal pier. Although the opinion does not contain t......
  • Harmon v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 17 Agosto 1984
  • Stanley v. Western Maryland Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1984
    ...exclusive remedy is under the LHWCA and the District Court was without jurisdiction over his FELA claim); Harmon v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 560 F.Supp. 914, 915 (D.D.C.1983) (if plaintiff's injury is covered by the LHWCA, his exclusive remedy lies in receipt of benefits under that ......

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