Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Buzynski v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.

Buzynski v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 277 U.S. 226 (1928)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1928-05-14
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Sanford' delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioner, Karl Buzynski, brought a libel in personam in admiralty in the federal District Court for Southern Texas against the Luckenbach Steamship Co., the owner of the Steamship Edgar F. Luckenbach, and the Texas Contracting Co., to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by him while working as a stevedore for the Contracting Co., an independent contractor engaged in loading cargo on the steamship while at dock in the port of Galveston. He was awarded a judgment against the two Companies jointly, 12 F.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Buzynski v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
20 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Jones Act Section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act incorporates into the maritime law, in favor of injured seamen, the applicable provisions of the Employers' Liability Act and its amendments, and rights arising under those provisions may be enforced either in suits in admiralty or in actions at law. 277 U.S. at 228
  2. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Seamen — Definition — Stevedores A stevedore engaged in the maritime work of stowing cargo upon a vessel is a "seaman" within the meaning of § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, and under the applicable provisions of the Employers' Liability Act he may recover from the stevedoring company employing him for an injury caused by the negligence of a fellow servant. 277 U.S. at 228
  3. Civil Procedure — Removal Where a circuit court of appeals erroneously reverses a judgment upon one question without deciding another question upon which the correctness of the judgment also depends, the case may be reversed for that error and remanded to that court for decision of the undetermined question. 277 U.S. at 228
BUZYNSKIv. LUCKENBACH S.S. CO.,277 U.S. 226(1928)
48 S.Ct. 440
BUZYNSKIv. LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
No. 534.
Argued March 19, 1928.
Decided May 14, 1928.
1. Section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act incorporated into the maritime law in favor of injured "seamen" the applicable provisions of the Employers' Liability Act and its amendments, and these may be enforced either in suits in admiralty or actions at law. P. 228. 2. A stevedore engaged in stowing cargo upon a vessel, is a "seaman" within the meaning of that section and, under applicable provisions of the Liability Act, may recover from the stevedoring company employing him for an injury caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant.Id. 3. Where the Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously reverses a judgment upon one question without deciding another upon which its correctness also depends, the case may be reversed for the error and remanded to that court for decision of the other question.Id.19 F.2d 871, reversed.
CERTIORARI,275 U.S. 518, to a judgment of the Circuit Court
of Appeals, which reversed a judgment of the District Court on a
libel in admiralty for personal injuries.
Page 227
Mr. W.E. Price, with whomMr. James W. Waymanwas on the brief, for petitioner.Mr. J. Newton Rayzor, with whomMr. Mart H. Roystonwas on the brief, for respondents.
MR. JUSTICE SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, Karl Buzynski, brought a libelin personamin admiralty in the federal District Court for Southern Texas against the Luckenbach Steamship Co., the owner of the SteamshipEdgar F. Luckenbach, and the Texas Contracting Co., to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by him while working as a stevedore for the Contracting Co., an independent contractor engaged in loading cargo on the steamship while at dock in the port of Galveston. He was awarded a judgment against the two Companies jointly,12 F.2d 92. This was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals,19 F.2d 871.

Shortly after Buzynski had started to work, and while he was removing a cover from one of the hatches on the ship, he was struck and severely injured, without fault on his part, by a chain which fell from the end of the boom of a derrick at this hatch, which was used in loading the cargo. The accident was caused by the starting in motion, in a manner not shown by direct evidence, of a winch belonging to the ship which connected with and controlled the movement of the boom. The winchman who operated the winch was an employee of the Contracting Co. and a fellow servant of Buzynski.

The District Court was of opinion that the accident resulted from a defect in the winch for which both Companies were responsible. The Circuit Court of Appeals was of opinion that the evidence showed no defect in thePage 228winch for which either of the Companies was liable, and that, although there was evidence from which it might reasonably be inferred that the accident was caused by negligence of the winchman or of another stevedore, nevertheless the Contracting Co. would not be liable for the negligence of such fellow servant.

We granted this writ of certiorari on account of this ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals as to the negligence of a fellow servant; and no other question need be considered here.

It is settled by this Court that § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920,1incorporated into the maritime law in favor of injured "seamen" the applicable provisions of the Employers Liability Act2and its amendments, and that these may be enforced either in suits in admiralty or actions at law.PanamaR.R. Co. v.Johnson,264 U.S. 375,388;Engelv.Davenport,271 U.S. 33,35;Panama R.R. Co. v.Vasquez,271 U.S. 557,560;Baltimore S.S. Co. v.Phillips,274 U.S. 316,324;Messelv.Foundation Co.,274 U.S. 427,434. And inInternat'l Stevedoring Co. v.Haverty,272 U.S. 50,52, we held that the word "seamen" as used in § 33 included a stevedore engaged in the maritime work of stowing cargo upon a vessel, and that under the applicable provisions of the Employers Liability Act, he could recover from the stevedoring company for an injury caused by the negligence of a fellow servant.

The view of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the Contracting Co. would not be liable for the negligence of a fellow servant, was erroneous, and its judgment must be reversed. But since it did not determine whether the accident was in fact due to such negligence, or to some other cause, the case will be remanded to that court withPage 229instructions to determine this question and take further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. SeeColev.Ralph,252 U.S. 286,290;Gerdesv.Lustgarten,266 U.S. 321,327.Reversed and remanded.
  1. Page 22841 Stat. 988, c. 250. ↩
  2. Page 22835 Stat. 65, c. 149. ↩