Smith v. The Mormacdale, 10700
| Decision Date | 17 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | 10701.,No. 10700,10700 |
| Citation | 198 F.2d 849 |
| Parties | SMITH v. THE MORMACDALE. GAUL v. THE ROBERT LUCKENBACH. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa., William D. Valente, Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Thomas E. Byrne, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., Mark D. Alspach, Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Before McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.
We are asked to decide whether a longshoreman, injured on board ship, may maintain a libel in rem against the ship on the grounds of negligence and unseaworthiness, where respondent vessel is owned by libellant's employer and where the employer has secured the payment of compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424 et seq., 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. The two appeals before us present the identical issue.
The libel in the appeal at No. 10,700, brought by libellant Smith against the vessel "Mormacdale," alleges that on December 3, 1948, libellant was injured while loading and unloading cargo aboard the respondent vessel in the Port of Philadelphia. Damages are sought because of the alleged unseaworthy condition of the vessel and the alleged negligence of its employees. At the time of the accident, libellant was in the employ of Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., owner of the "Mormacdale."
The libel in the appeal at No. 10,701 was commenced by libellant Gaul against the vessel "Robert Luckenbach." Gaul avers that he was injured on June 9, 1950, while loading and unloading cargo aboard respondent in the Port of Philadelphia. His action, too, is grounded on the alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel and the negligence of its employees. At the time of the accident, Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc., was both the employer of libellant and owner of respondent vessel.
Compensation payments were subsequently paid to both men pursuant to the provisions of the Longshoremen's Act.
The district court granted the motion of each respondent to dismiss the libel and enter judgment in its favor, holding that each action was in fact a suit against the employer and was thus barred by Section 5 of the Longshoremen's Act. These are appeals from those orders.
Section 5 of the Act provides: "The liability of an employer prescribed in section 4 of this chapter shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee * * * and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death, except that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee * * * may elect to claim compensation under this chapter, or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages on account of such injury or death. * * *" 44 Stat. 1426, 33 U.S.C. A. § 905.
In an effort to escape the force of the above provision, appellants contend that the vessel is a juridical entity distinct and separate from its owner, who may be concurrently and independently liable for its torts. It is urged that the Longshoremen's Act does not attempt to limit the liability of any entity or person other than the employer, and thus does not affect the historic liability of the vessel.
It is abundantly clear that the benefits provided for the employee by the provisions of the Act constitute the limit of the employer's liability. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 85, 102, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099; Swanson v. Marra Bros., 1946, 328 U.S. 1, 6, 66 S.Ct. 869, 90 L.Ed. 1045. Where the vessel is the property of the employer, an action against the vessel is realistically an action against the employer; collection of damages out of the ship is, of course, an indirect way of collecting from the owner-employer. Samuels v. Munson S. S. Line, 5 Cir., 1933, 63 F.2d 861. To impose this additional liability on the employer in the situation where he is also ship owner would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harney v. William M. Moore Building Corporation
...Gahagan Const. Corp. v. Armao, 165 F.2d 301 (1 Cir.), cert. den. 333 U.S. 876, 68 S.Ct. 905, 92 L.Ed. 1152 (1948). 4 Smith v. The Mormacdale, 198 F.2d 849 (3 Cir. 1952), cert. den. 345 U.S. 908, 73 S.Ct. 648, 97 L.Ed. 1344 (1953); Bennett v. The Mormacteal, 160 F.Supp. 840 (E.D.N.Y.1957), a......
-
In re Arab Bank, PLC Alien Tort Statute Litig.
...of N. Am. v. S/S Am. Argosy, 732 F.2d 299, 302 (2d Cir.1984) (“The in rem liability of a ship is a fiction....”).17 Smith v. The Mormacdale, 198 F.2d 849, 850 (3d Cir.1952).18 See Davison v. Seal–Skins, 7 F. Cas. 192, 192–93 (C.C.D.Conn.1835) (holding that “sealskins ... saved and rescued f......
-
Ruiz Pichirilo v. Maysonet Guzman, 5650.
...requires something more than a mere defective condition of the vessel. See Noel v. Isbrandtsen Co., supra. In Smith v. The Mormacdale, 3 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 849, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 908, 73 S.Ct. 648, 97 L.Ed. 1344, a longshoreman who was limited in his rights against his employer b......
-
COMPAGNIE De NAVIGATION, ETC. v. Mondial United Corp.
...E.D.N.Y., 1957, 160 F.Supp. 840, 1958 A.M.C. 870, aff'd, 2 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 138, 1958 A.M.C. 874; Smith v. The Mormacdale, 3 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 849, 1952 A.M.C. 1340; Samuels v. Munson S.S. Line, Inc., 5 Cir., 1933, 63 F.2d 861, 1933 A.M.C. 515; Reed v. S.S. Yaka, 3 Cir., 1962, 307 F.......