Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp - 400 U.S. 494, 91 S. Ct. 514 (1971)

Rule:

Unseaworthiness is a remedy separate from, independent of, and additional to other claims against the shipowner, whether created by statute or under general maritime law. More specifically, liability based upon unseaworthiness is wholly distinct from liability based upon negligence. The reason, of course, is that unseaworthiness is a condition, and how that condition came into being - whether by negligence or otherwise - is quite irrelevant to the owner's liability for personal injuries resulting from it.

Facts:

A longshoreman, employed by an independent stevedoring contractor, was injured while working on a barge alongside a ship which he and his fellow longshoremen were loading with cargo. The injury occurred when the longshoreman was struck by a sling attached to the ship's boom, which was being operated by a fellow longshoreman and which was lowered too fast and too far. The injured longshoreman instituted an action to recover damages against the shipowner in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that his injuries had been caused by the ship's unseaworthiness. The District Court denied the shipowner's motion for summary judgment, which motion was based on the ground that a single negligent act by a fellow longshoreman could not render the ship unseaworthy. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, directing that the shipowner's motion for summary judgment be granted.

Issue:

Could the longshoreman recover under the doctrine of unseaworthiness?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that liability based upon unseaworthiness is wholly distinct from liability based upon negligence, unseaworthiness being a condition and it being irrelevant how the condition causing unseaworthiness came into existence, whether by negligence or otherwise. The condition of unseaworthiness includes, in addition to any defective condition of a ship itself, such circumstances as defective gear or appurtenances, an unfit or insufficient crew, and an improper method of loading or stowing cargo. Finally, the court held that the longshoreman could not recover under the doctrine of unseaworthiness in the case at bar, since his injuries were not caused by any such conditions of unseaworthiness, but instead were caused by the single, wholly unforeseeable act of negligence by a fellow longshoreman in operating the ship's boom.