Jackson v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1966
• Docket Number: No. 2155,2155
• Citation: 185 So.2d 342
• Parties: Helen JACKSON v. LYKES BROS. STEAMSHIP CO., Inc.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 342

185 So.2d 342

Helen JACKSON v. LYKES BROS. STEAMSHIP CO., Inc.

No. 2155.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 4, 1966.

Rehearing Denied May 2, 1966.

Writ Refused June 21, 1966.

Charles R. Maloney, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Terriberry, Rault, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell, William E. Wright, G . Edward Merritt, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before REGAN, YARRUT and HALL, JJ.

REGAN, Judge.

The plaintiff, Helen Jackson, filed this suit against the defendant, Lykes Bros. Steamship Company, Inc., endeavoring to recover the sum of $75,000.00 representing damages incurred by her as a result of the death of her husband from the inhalation of noxious gases, which she asserts was caused by the negligence of the defendant or the unseaworthiness of its steamship, upon which her husband was employed as a longshoreman.

The plaintiff requests relief under the Jones Act, ¹ the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act, ² the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, ³ the Louisiana Civil Code, ⁴ and the general maritime law.

The defendant in response to the foregoing suit pleaded the exceptions of no right or cause of action predicated on the rationale (1) that the Jones Act provides a remedy only for seamen who are either masters or members of the crew, and not for longshoremen; that (2) the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply to a longshoreman injured or killed aboard a vessel in navigable waters; that (3) since the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act provides the exclusive remedy in this situation, the plaintiff possessed no cause of action under the Louisiana Civil Code; and that (4) there exists no cause of action for wrongful death under the general maritime law.

In addition thereto, the defendant filed an exception to the jurisdiction of the court rationae materiae insisting that the Louisiana courts possess no jurisdiction under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

From a judgment of the lower court sustaining all of the defendant's exceptions and dismissing the plaintiff's suit, she has prosecuted this appeal.

The record reveals that the plaintiff asserted in her petition that her husband was killed as the result of the inhalation of noxious fumes or gases while in the course and scope of his employment as a longshoreman aboard the defendant's steamship. The ship was moored in the Mississippi River when the accident occurred, so that there exists no dispute as to the fact that he was working aboard in navigable waters.

Therefore, the only question posed for this court's consideration is whether the plaintiff's exclusive remedy emanates from the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, or whether she may litigate in the state courts under the Jones Act, the general maritime law, the Louisiana Civil Code, or the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act.

The answer to the foregoing question is contained in 33 U.S.C. § 905, which provides that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act is the exclusive remedy where it is applicable. This section reads:

'The liability of an employer prescribed in section 904 of this title shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death * * *.'

Since the injury complained of was sustained by a longshoreman aboard a vessel located in navigable waters, the Longshoremen's Act is applicable to the exclusion of any remedies for wrongful death afforded by the Louisiana Civil Code. ⁵

In view of the exclusiveness of the remedy under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, it has been settled that this act and the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act are mutually exclusive. However, situations have often arisen wherein it was difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a particular injury was within the purview of the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act or the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act. In order to ease the burden on a compensation claimant in making his choice of remedies, the courts carved out an exception known as the 'twilight zone' doctrine by virtue of which the injured party possessed a choice of either the federal or state compensation remedy when the location of the accident could reasonably have conferred jurisdiction upon the state courts or the federal administrative agencies. However, in this case it is clear that the longshoreman involved was fatally injured while working on navigable waters, and the above statute emphatically reveals that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act is applicable to the facts hereof. ⁶

The plaintiff's argument as to the applicability of the Jones Act and the general maritime law to the death of her husband is predicated primarily upon the rationale emanating from the case of Reed v. Steamship Yaka, ⁷ which concluded that the section of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act quoted above making that act the exclusive remedy of a longshoreman injured aboard a vessel in navigable waters did not preclude an action by an employee against his employer for injuries sustained aboard a vessel owned by the employer. This case involved a suit under the general maritime law, predicated upon the shipowner's warranty of a seaworthy vessel.

The plaintiff argues, in effect, that the Yaka decision emasculated and rendered of no effect the exclusive remedy provision of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act. Thus counsel for plaintiff reasons that since this section is no longer in force, a person injured as a longshoreman employed by a shipowner may pursue his remedy under the Jones Act.

Our analysis of the Yaka case, however, does not support the plaintiff's contention. It is authority only for the proposition that an injured longshoreman may bring an admiralty libel under the general maritime law for injuries sustained by him aboard his employer's vessel. It does not...