De Martino v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
| Decision Date | 13 November 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 4259.,4259. |
| Citation | 164 F.2d 177 |
| Parties | DE MARTINO v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Stephen S. Bean, of Boston, Mass. (Joseph Schneider and Stanley H. Rudman, both of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
Conrad W. Oberdorfer, of Boston, Mass. (Simon P. Townsend and Choate, Hall & Stewart, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, MAHONEY and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
This is a libel in admiralty brought to recover damages for personal injuries. The libellant alleges that while "employed as a painter and performing seaman's duties aboard a certain dock which was owned by or under the control of the respondent who was using it in the navigable waters in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts, in pursuance of navigation" he was injured by falling into the hold because of a defect of the dock. The libel states that the accident was caused by a negligent failure on the part of the respondent to provide the libellant with a safe place to work, to provide him with suitable appliances, and to refrain from other negligent conduct. It is further alleged that the libellant has received from his employer's insurer no award under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 1927, 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., and has the right to proceed under the general admiralty and maritime law.
The respondent excepted to the libel and moved to dismiss on the ground that the Longshoremen's Act prescribes the exclusive remedy for the libellant and forecloses his bringing a suit in admiralty or at law. The lower court dismissed the libel and an appeal has been taken.
It is undisputed that the Act provides an exclusive remedy1 against the employer for compensation for injuries or death for all "employees"2 covered. From the plaintiff's libel it is clear that he is a harbor worker covered by the Act. He is employed on a dock; he is a painter. The allegation that he was performing seaman's duties does not negative his being a harbor worker. International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 1926, 272 U.S. 50, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157; Carumbo v. Cape Cod S. S. Co., 1 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 991. The whole tenor of the libel indicates that the libellant falls within the Act. It is true that masters or members of the crew of a vessel are not covered by the Act. But it does not appear that the libellant is engaged in navigation or is a member of a ship's company. See South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 1940, 309 U.S. 251, 260, 60 S.Ct. 544, 84 L. Ed. 732. Nor does there appear to be the permanent attachment to a vessel which commonly characterizes a crew. See Norton v. Warner Co., 1944, 321 U.S. 565, 573, 64 S.Ct. 747, 88 L.Ed. 430. The allegation that the libellant was performing seaman's duties is not a sufficient allegation that he was a member of the crew since seaman is not synonymous with member of a crew but includes harbor workers. Carumbo v. Cape Cod S. S. Co., supra. Not only is there no allegation that the libellant was a member of a crew of a vessel or a master but the libel discloses just the opposite. A dock — even a floating dock — can hardly be considered a vessel since docks do not come within the statutory definition of vessel as including "every description of water craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water." Rev.Stat.1875, § 3, 1 U.S.C.A. § 3 (1940); cf. Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co., 1887, 119 U.S. 625, 627, 7 S.Ct. 336, 30 L.Ed. 501; Berton v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Co., D.C.N.J.1915, 219 F. 763, 771.
Section 5 of the Act states that "if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required * * * an injured employee * * * may elect to claim compensation under this Act, or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages." The libellant contends that whether or not the respondent maintains compensation insurance is a question of fact; that the burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co.
...v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Co., D.N.J., 219 F. 763. 8 Bernado v. Bethlehem Steel Company, 2 Cir., 314 F.2d 604; DeMartino v. Bethlehem Steel Company, 1 Cir., 164 F.2d 177. 9 Summerlin v. Massman Const. Co., 4 Cir., 199 F.2d 10 Jeffrey v. Henderson Bros., 4 Cir., 193 F.2d 589. 11 Leary Const......
-
Dirma v. US, 87 CIV 0380 (TCP).
...of its own. See, e.g., Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co., 119 U.S. 625, 627, 7 S.Ct. 336, 337, 30 L.Ed. 501 (1887); DeMartino v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 164 F.2d 177, 179 (1st Cir.1947); J.M.L. Trading Corp., 501 F.Supp. at 324. The Fourth Circuit further supported this principle when it stated th......
-
State ex rel. Haddock Engineers v. Swope
...142 F.2d 237; Cataldo v. A./S. Glittre, D.C., 41 F.Supp. 555; Moore v. Christiensen S. C. Co., 5 Cir., 53 F.2d 299; De Martino v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 1 Cir., 164 F.2d 177; Fontana v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 106 F.Supp. 461. See, also, Huhn v. Foley Bros., 221 Minn. 279, 22 N.W.2d 3. Oth......
-
Powers v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation
...279, 283 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 846, 90 S.Ct. 105, 24 L.Ed.2d 96 (1969).4 In our own case of DeMartino v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 164 F.2d 177, 179 (1st Cir. 1947), holding that a floating dock was not a vessel, we cited Berton v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Co., 219 F. 763 (D.N.J......