Waldron v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.

386 U.S. 724, 87 S. Ct. 1410, 18 L. Ed. 2d 482, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2765

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: June 12, 1967
• Docket: 233
• Status: Published

Opinions

Mr. Justice Black

delivered the.opinion of the Court.

The single legal question presented by this case is whether a vessel is unseaworthy when its officers assign too few crewmen to perform a particular task in a safe and prudent manner. It is to resolve this question, which the lower courts answered in the negative¹ and which has caused a conflict afnong circuits,² that we granted certiorari. 385 U. S. 810.

Petitioner, a member of the crew of respondent’s vessel S. S. Mormacwind, was engaged with four other seamen in a docking operation at the stern of the vessel as it approached a pier. At the last minute, the third mate, who was directing the docking, was instructed to put out an additional mooring line, a heavy eight-inch rope, which was completely coiled on the deck. The mate then ordered petitioner and another crewman to uncoil this heavy rope and carry it 56 feet to the edge of the ship. While petitioner was uncoiling a portion of the rope to carry it to the edge of the ship, he fell and injured his back. At the trial, as the Court of Appeals recognized, “[t]here was expert evidence to the effect that 3 or 4 men rather than 2 were required to carry the line in order to constitute ‘safe and prudent seamanship.’” 356 F. 2d 247, 248. Petitioner did not contend that the vessel as a whole was insufficiently manned or that there were too few men at the stern engaged in the overall docking operation. Neither did he contend that the third mate or the seaman assigned to uncoil the rope with him was incompetent, or that the rope was itself defective. His sole contention was that the mate’s assignment of two men to do the work of three or four constituted negligence and made the vessel unseaworthy. The District Court allowed the negligence issue to go to the jury; which found for' respondent, but granted a directed verdict to respondent on the unseaworthiness issue, holding that the above facts could not, as a matter of law, constitute unseaworthiness. The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, affirmed, holding:

“If someone is injured solely by reason of an act or omission on the part of any member of a crew found to be possesséd of the competence of men of his eall-ing, there can be no. recovery unless the act or omission is proved to be negligent.” 356 F. 2d, at 251.

It is here unnecessary to trace the history of the judicial development and expansion of the doctrine of unseaworthiness. That task was recently performed in Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U. S. 539, 543-549, where the Court, rejecting the notion that a shipowner,is liable for temporary unseaworthiness only-if he is negligent, concluded: “There is no suggestion in any of the decisions that the duty is less onerous with respect to ... an unsea-worthy condition which may be only temporary. . . . What has evolved is a complete divorcement of unseaworthiness liability from concepts of negligence.” 362 U. S., at 549, 550. It is that principle which we conclude the lower courts failed to apply in their decisions in this case.

The basic issue here is whether there is any justification, consistent.with the broad remedial purposes of the doctrine of unseaworthiness, for drawing a distinction between the ship’s equipment, on the one hand, and its personnel, on the other. As regards equipment, the classic case of unseaworthiness arises when the vessel is either insufficiently or defectively equipped.³ In Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 321 U. S. 96, however., the Court made it clear that the availability of safe and sufficient gear ón board does not preyent the actual use of defective gear from constituting unseaworthiness, for the test of seaworthiness is to be applied “when and where the work is to be done.” Id., at 104. And in Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser, 358 U. S. 423, we further clarified the extent of unseaworthiness liability by holding that, even though the equipment furnished for the particular task is itself safe and sufficient, its misuse by the crew renders the vessel unseaworthy. We emphatically stated the basis of our holding: “Unseaworthiness extends not only to the vessel but to the crew.” Id., at 427. For that proposition the Court cited Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 348 U. S. 336, where we said, “We see no reason to draw a line between the ship and the gear on the one hand and the ship’s personnel on the other.” Id., at 339,⁴

We likewise see ho reason to draw, that line here. That, being so, under Mahnich it makes no . difference that respondent’s vessel was fully manned or that there was a sufficient complement of seamen engaged in the overall docking operation, for there were too few men assigned “when and where” the job of uncoiling the rope was to be done.⁵ And under Crumady it makes no difference that the third mate and two men he assigned to perform the job were themselves competent seamen, or that the rope was itself a sound piece of gear. By assigning too few men to uncoil and carry the heavy rope, the mate caused both the men and the rope to be misused.

This analysis, we believe, is required by a clear recognition of the needs of the seaman for protection from dangerous conditions beyond his control and the role of the unseaworthiness doctrine which, by shifting the risk to the shipowner, provides that protection. If petitioner had been ordered to use a defective pulley in lifting the rope, he. would clearly be protected by the doctrine of unseaworthiness. If the pulley itself were sound but petitioner had been ordered to load too much rope on it, he would likewise be protected. If four men had been, assigned to uncoil the rope but two of the men lacked the strength of ordinary efficient seamen, petitioner would again be protected. Should this protection be denied merely because the shipowner, instead of supplying petitioner with unsafe gear, insufficient gear, or incompetent manual assistance, assigned him insufficient manual assistance? We think not. When this Court extended the shipowner’s liability' for unseaworthiness to long-shoremen performing seamen’s work, Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85—either on board or on the pier, Gutierrez v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 373 U. S. 206, either with the ship’s gear or the stevedore’s gear, Alaska S. S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396, either as employees of an independent stevedore or as employees of a shipowner pro hac vice, Reed v. The Yaka, 373 U. S. 410—we noted that “the hazards of marine service, the helplessness of the- men to ward off the perils, of unseaworthiness, the harshpess of forcing them to shoulder their losses alone, and the broad range of the ‘humanitarian policy’ of the doctrine of seaworthiness,” id., at 413, should prevent the shipowner from delegating, shifting, or escaping his duty by using the men or gear of others to perform the ship’s work. By the same token, the shipowner should not be able to escape liability merely because he has used men rather than machines or physical equipment to perform that work.

Petitioner is entitled to present his theory of unseaworthiness to the jury, and the case is reversed and remanded for that purpose. ft ⅛ 80 ^

1 356 F. 2d 247.

2 Compare American President Lines, Ltd. v. Redfern, 345 F. 2d 629, with The Magdapur, 3 F. Supp. 971; Koleris v. S. S. Good Hope, 241 F. Supp. 967; and the instant case. Other cases from the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits also seem to suggest a result different from the’one reached in the instant case. See, e. g., Ferrante v. Swedish American Lines, 331 F. 2d 571, cert. dismissed, 379 U. S. 801; Thompson v. Calmar S. S. Corp., 331 F. 2d 657, cert. denied, 379 U. S. 913; Hroncich v. American President Lines, Ltd., 334 F. 2d 282; Scott v. Isbrandtsen Co., 327 F. 2d 113; Blassingill v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 336 F. 2d 367; June T., Inc. v. King, 290 F. 2d 404. For a critical discussion of the decision below, see 66 Col. L. Rev. 1180 (1966).

3 See generally Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty § 6-38 et seq. (1957).

4 This statement, of course, was made in the context of our holding that unseaworthiness results when a member of the crew is “not equal in disposition to the ordinary men of that calling.” 348 U. S., at 340. That is so, we explained, because the shipowner has a duty to provide a crew “competent to meet the contingencies of the voyage.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals here recognized that “the. vessel must be manned by ah adequate and proper number of men,” 356 F. 2d, at 251 (see, e. g., DeLima v. Trinidad Corp., 302 F. 2d 585; June T., Inc. v. King, 290 F. 2d 404), but then proceeded 4q draw a distinction between a well-manned ship and a well-manned operation aboard the ship.

5 Under Mitchell, it makes no difference that the unseaworthy condition caused by inadequate manpower “may be only temporary.” 362 U. S., at 549. See generally Note, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 819 (1963).