Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
81 later cases cite Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki; 81 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by Statute
-
The District of Massachusetts recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments superseded Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for longshore workers injured after the amendments' effective date, while holding that the statutory change did not apply to preexisting causes of action.
Addison v. Bulk Food Carriers, Inc. · D. Mass. · filed
In particular, he may still sue for such injuries under the doctrine of Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 25, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099, and the Act’s abrogation of the Sieracki doctrine is inapplicable to preexisting causes of action.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments superseded Sieracki insofar as it allowed a covered longshore worker to sue the vessel for unseaworthiness and thereby permitted the vessel to shift liability to the worker's employer through indemnity.
Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The intent and effect of this amendment were to overrule this Court’s decisions in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85 (1946), and Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S. S. Corp., 350 U. S. 124 (1956), insofar as they made an employer circuitously liable for injuries to its employee, by allowing the employee to maintain an action for unseaworthiness against the vessel and allowing the vessel to maintain an action for indemnity against the employer.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments legislatively displaced Sieracki's rule allowing a longshoreman to recover unseaworthiness damages from a vessel.
I. T. O. Corp. of Baltimore v. Benefits Review Board, U. S. Department of Labor · Fourth Circuit · filed
The 1972 Amendments to §§ 2 and 3 were only part of a broad overhaul of the Act. Other amendments substantially increased the maximum and minimum benefits which could be awarded; accomplished a legislative overruling of Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946), which permitted a longshoreman to recover damages from a ship resulting from the ship's unseaworthiness
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for covered longshore workers as part of Congress's elimination of circuitous employer liability.
John Dodge v. Mitsui Shintaku Ginko K. K. Tokyo, and Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co., Intervenor-Appellee · Ninth Circuit · filed
The intent and effect of this amendment was to overrule this Court’s decisions in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85 [66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099] (1946), and Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan Atlantic S. S. Corp., 350 U.S. 124 [76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133] (1957), insofar as they made an employer circuitously liable for injuries to its employee, by allowing the employee to maintain an action for unseaworthiness against the vessel and allowing the vessel to maintain an action for indemnity against the employer. 417 U.S. at 113 n. 6, 94 S.Ct. at 2178 n. 6 (emphasis added). Hence, it appears that the effect of the 1972 Amendments was to disallow both contribution and indemnity.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), enacted in the 1972 LHWCA amendments, legislatively displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for workers covered by the Act while preserving third-party negligence actions.
Robert Lee Parker v. South Louisiana Contractors, Inc. · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · filed
The principal aim of this section was to legislatively overrule Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946) and Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133 (1956), which allowed an injured employee to impose indirect liability on his employer for damages in excess of compensation limits. Thus, section 905(b) is primarily designed to prevent continued circumvention of section 905(a) of the LHWCA, which makes compensation the employee’s exclusive remedy against his employer. Of particular importance in the present case is the fact that section 905(b) eliminates only an injured worker’s right to bring actions against third parties based on unseaworthiness, and preserves his right under prior law to recover for third party negligence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's rule allowing longshore workers to recover against a vessel for unseaworthiness.
Karen Murphy v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · filed
What has been described as the effective judicial repeal of § 905 developed as a consequence of the extension of the unseaworthiness remedy to longshoremen, Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946) [...] The amended Act, which greatly increases compensation benefits, now prohibits claims for unseaworthiness.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of Virginia recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for covered longshore workers.
Bandy v. Bank Line Ltd. · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · filed
The elimination of the indemnity action defeats the traditional reasons for the presumption of conflict of interest and legislatively overrules Sieracki and Ryan. The plaintiff, however, argues that the presumption should still exist because of other factual situations which could amount to conflict of interest, such as the dependence of stevedores on business from vessel owners and the likelihood of identity of insurance carriers. Thus, while Sieracki and Ryan are dead, Czaplicki and its progeny are still alive.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for longshoremen employed by stevedores, requiring them henceforth to prove shipowner negligence, while noting that the amendments did not apply retroactively to the 1969 injuries before it.
Hanseatische Reederei Emil Offen & Company, and Cross-Appellee v. Marine Terminals Corporation, and Cross-Appellant · Ninth Circuit · filed
The Act overrules Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 under which longshoremen working for stevedore companies have been able to sue shipowners as third parties for injuries caused by unseaworthy vessel conditions. Longshoremen must henceforth prove negligence on the part of the shipowner. Given these changes, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) eliminates shipowner indemnity actions under the Ryan warranty of workmanlike performance. The 1972 amendments were not made retroactive and do not apply to this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's strict-liability unseaworthiness remedy for covered longshore workers, leaving them a vessel action only for negligence under Section 905(b).
Edward J. Rich v. United States Lines, Inc. · Third Circuit · filed
By enacting Section 905(b), Congress achieved three basic goals, albeit with various degrees of success. First, it overruled Seas Shipping Company v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946) and Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan Atlantic Steamship Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133 (1956). The former extended the strict liability doctrine of unseaworthiness to longshoremen thereby permitting them to recover damages from a vessel owner when injured while working aboard his ship even though the injury resulted solely from the stevedore's conduct.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments superseded Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for longshore workers covered by the Act, replacing their vessel claim with one for negligence, while noting that the amendments did not directly affect FECA-covered longshore workers.
United States Lines, Inc. v. United States · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · filed
Congress overruled the SierackiRyan form of action with the 1972 amendments to the L.H.W.C.A.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's rule imposing unseaworthiness liability on shipowners for injuries to covered longshore workers.
Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Against this background, Congress acted in 1972, among other things, to eliminate the shipowner’s liability to the longshoreman for unseaworthiness and the stevedore’s liability to the shipowner for unworkmanlike service resulting in injury to the longshoreman — in other words, to overrule Sieracki and Ryan.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendment superseded the combined Sieracki-Ryan scheme for covered longshore workers, eliminating the worker's unseaworthiness action against the vessel followed by the vessel's indemnity action against the employer.
Misener Marine Construction Co. v. Southport Marine, Inc. · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · filed
The theory on which the case law allowed the longshoreman to sue the “vessel” was that of “implied warranty of seaworthiness”. Case law provided that the “vessel” could then sue the longshoreman’s employer on the theory of an implied duty of the employer to furnish workmanlike performance to the “vessel”. These theories were based upon contract rather than tort and allowed an “end run” around the Act by permitting the employee to sue the “vessel”, which could then sue the employer, who would be liable for damages beyond the compensation provided for in the Act. Seas Shipping Company v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1046). Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation, 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133 (1956). This circuitous Ryan — Sieracki run around the statutory language was in turn abrogated in 1972 by an amendment to the Longshoreman and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act which purported to remove any indemnity cause of action based on tort or contract against the injured longshoreman’s employer.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act displaced Sieracki’s unseaworthiness remedy for longshore workers, while applying the pre-amendment rule to an injury predating the amendments.
American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Sieracki has been overtaken by .the 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen’s Act.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The District Court for the District of the Canal Zone recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for workers covered by the LHWCA, while leaving that remedy intact for noncovered Panama Canal Company employees.
Pinto v. Vessel "Santa Isabel" · United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone · filed
This legislation amended section 5 of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. § 905, by adding a new subsection (b) which overruled Sieracki and Ryan insofar as those covered by the LHWCA were concerned.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of Louisiana recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness regime for covered longshore workers.
Hamilton v. Mesa Petroleum Co. · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · filed
Notwithstanding the similarity between a longshoreman aboard a stationary platform off the Louisiana coast and the defunct Sieracki seaman, this Court is constrained by § 905 and well-established judicial interpretation thereof to grant the motion for summary judgment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for longshore workers covered by the Act.
Rodriguez v. Compass Shipping Co. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In 1946, in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85, the Court concluded that an injured longshoreman could pursue a third-party claim against a shipowner for unseaworthiness, as well as for negligence. In 1956, in Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U. S. 124, the Court held that a shipowner found liable to a longshoreman for damages in a third-party action could seek indemnification from the stevedore based upon the stevedore's contractual duty to provide workmanlike service. Congress in 1972 overruled both Sieracki and Ryan Stevedoring.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for covered longshore workers.
James L. Chiasson v. Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation and Northwestern National Insurance Company · Fifth Circuit · filed
No one can doubt that Congress in the 1972 Amendments aimed to overrule Sieracki claims based on unseaworthiness and Ryan indemnity actions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments superseded Sieracki's unseaworthiness cause of action for covered longshore workers, while leaving the distinct Burnside negligence-based indemnity action intact.
Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. Barracuda Tanker Corporation · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · filed
The Owners correctly claim that two mainstays of Burnside, Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133 (1956), and Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946), were expressly overruled by the 1972 amendments. Such overruling, however, is not the end of our inquiry. The legislative history of the 1972 amendments shows that Congress intended the elimination of the Ryan and Sieracki type of causes of action.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's seaworthiness remedy for covered longshore workers.
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
But in so doing, Congress also abolished the injured employee’s seaworthiness remedy against the shipowner — a strict-liability action that the Court had recognized in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85 (1946).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness standard for covered longshore workers by substituting a negligence standard for their actions against shipowners.
Hillier v. Southern Towing Co. · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · filed
Most reported admiralty indemnity cases are cases where a shipowner, having been held liable to a longshoreman for unseaworthiness under the doctrine of Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946), sought indemnity from the stevedore company that employed the longshoreman even though there was no explicit indemnity contract. ... The 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act substituted negligence for unseaworthiness as the standard of liability in actions by longshoremen against shipowners and abolished the shipowner's right of indemnity against the stevedore.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy in situations covered by the LHWCA, while leaving possible pockets of Sieracki seamen outside the Act's coverage.
William G. Bridges v. Penrod Drilling Company, Defendant/Third Party v. Offshore Logistics Services, Inc., Defendant/Third Party · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · filed
In Aparicio v. Swan Lake, 643 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir.1981), and Burks v. American River Transportation Co., 679 F.2d 69 (5th Cir.1982), we discussed at length Sieracki and Ryan, and their progeny, and the impact of the 1972 amendments to the LHWCA which were designed to abrogate Sieracki/Ryan in situations covered by the LHWCA.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments abolished Sieracki unseaworthiness actions for workers covered by the Act, while leaving the remedy available to Sieracki seamen outside the Act's coverage.
Herman Woessner v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · filed
This court has held that the amendments to the LHWCA were effective to abolish seaworthiness actions by Sieracki seamen who are covered by the Act, but that the seaworthiness remedy remains available to Sieracki seamen not covered by the Act. Burks v. American River Transport Co., 679 F.2d 69 (5th Cir.1982); Aparicio v. Swan Lake, 643 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir.1981). Appellants in the case before us are “covered” by the Act and thus would not be entitled to a seaworthiness remedy even if they were found to be Sieracki seamen.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The District of Maryland recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for covered longshore workers in third-party vessel actions by substituting negligence as the standard of liability.
Presley v. Healy Tibbits Construction Co. · U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland · filed
The purpose of the amendments was to provide a comprehensive statutory restructuring of the liability of ship owners (and persons standing in the place of ship owners) against the background of the numerous progeny of Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946). In Sieracki the Supreme Court had held that a shipowner owed a warranty of seaworthiness to injured longshoremen because they performed work traditionally done by seamen. . . . In the 1972 amendments Congress expressly modified the law in two respects. . . . Second, it substituted negligence for unseaworthiness as the standard for liability in third party actions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of Louisiana recognized and applied the 1972 LHWCA amendments as displacing Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for workers covered by the Act.
Ducrepont v. Baton Rouge Marine Enterprises, Inc. · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · filed
The principal aim of the amendments was to legislatively overrule the now well-known Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946) and Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133 (1956), which allowed an injured employee to impose indirect liability on his employer for damages in excess of compensation limits. Thus, the 1972 legislation was primarily designed to prevent “continued circumvention of section 905(a) of the LHWCA, which makes compensation the employee’s exclusive remedy against his employer.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for workers covered by the Act, while preserving a negligence action against the vessel under section 905(b).
Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Ma-Ju Marine Services, Inc. · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · filed
In the 1972 amendments, Congress retained the exclusivity provision — section 5 — as new section 5(a), and added subsection (b), which permits covered employees to sue the “vessel” for its negligence, but overrules that part of Sieracki that allowed unseaworthiness claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recognized and applied the 1972 LHWCA amendments as eliminating Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for covered harbor workers, while leaving that remedy available to seamen.
Spearman v. United States · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · filed
However, the harbor workers’ entitlement to the warranty of seaworthiness was eliminated by the 1972 amendments to the LSHWCA. Since 1972, the LSHWCA has provided, in pertinent part, that ‘The liability of the vessel under this subsection shall not be based upon the warranty of seaworthiness or a breach thereof at the time the injury occurred.’ 33 U.S.C. Section 905(b). See Cooper Stevedoring Company v. Kopke, Inc., 417 U.S. 106, 113 n. 6, 94 S.Ct. 2174, 2178 n. 6, 40 L.Ed.2d 694 (1974) (1972 amendments to the LSHWCA statutorily overruled Sieracki). Thus, under the maritime law as it stood at the time of the alleged incident in question, plaintiff Spear-man could maintain an action against the defendant United States for breach of the warranty of seaworthiness only if plaintiff were a seaman. If plaintiff were a harbor worker, an action for negligence against the defendant United States would be, pursuant to the LSHWCA, his exclusive remedy.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of Louisiana held that LHWCA § 905(b), as amended in 1972, displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for a compulsory river pilot covered by the LHWCA.
Bach v. Trident Shipping Co., Inc. · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · filed
Plaintiffs urge that this Court misconstrued the continuing effect of Sieracki. . . . Plaintiffs continue to ignore what is implicit in the Court’s original Order and Reasons: that river pilots can, and the decedent did, come within the reach of the LHWCA. As a marine worker who was not a master or member of a crew and who worked within Louisiana territorial waters and not for the federal government, decedent was covered by the LHWCA. Being covered by the LHWCA, § 905(b) precludes any claims for unseaworthiness.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for employees covered by the Act.
Steven L. Easley v. Southern Shipbuilding Corporation · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · filed
In 1972 Congress enacted § 5(b) of the LHWCA which overruled the Supreme Court’s holding in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946). Sieracki allowed longshoremen a cause of action for unseaworthiness against a vessel owner. Section 5(b) expressly eliminated the unseaworthiness action for all employees covered by the LHWCA.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for workers covered by the Act, including the harbor pilot in this case.
Wallace S. Harwood, Jr. v. Partredereit Af 15.5.81, Wallace S. Harwood, Jr. v. Partredereit Af 15.5.81 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · filed
Harwood suggests that he is entitled to the general maritime law warranty of seaworthiness regardless of the statutory analysis set out below. He relies on Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946), for this proposition. His reliance is misplaced because Congress specifically overruled Sieracki with the 1972 amendments to the LHWCA. See Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S. 256, 262, 99 S.Ct. 2753, 2757, 61 L.Ed.2d 521 (1979) (the 1972 amendments intended to "overrule" Sieracki)-, 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4702. Furthermore, this court has repeatedly ruled that the 1972 amendments "abolished" the Sieracki form of action.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The 1972 LHWCA amendments eliminated Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for seamen and other workers covered by the LHWCA, while leaving the remedy available in the Fifth Circuit to workers outside the Act's coverage.
Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp. · N.D. Miss. · filed
By and large, those amendments served to eliminate the availability of a Sieracki claim to workers covered under the LHWCA. In short, the 1972 amendments abrogated the Sieracki seaworthiness warranty owed to seaman and other workers covered under the LHWCA.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal recognized and applied the 1972 LHWCA amendments as displacing Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for workers covered by the Act, leaving a vessel-negligence claim under section 905(b).
Armstrong v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co. · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit · filed
The 1972 amendments to the LHWCA added the Section 905(b) cause of action for vessel negligence and legislatively overruled the claims formerly recognized under Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 rehearing den., 328 U.S. 878, 66 S.Ct. 1116, 90 L.Ed. 1646 (1946).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Northern District of California recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for longshore and harbor workers covered by the Act, leaving negligence as their sole vessel-liability remedy while preserving seaman remedies for workers who qualify as seamen.
Smallwood v. American Trading & Transportation Co. · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · filed
Congress made an effort to clear up the confusion in 1972 when it amended the LHWCA to permit an action against the shipowner for injuries caused by the negligence of the vessel. Congress specifically provided that this is the sole remedy of the longshore worker against the vessel and that the warranty of unseaworthiness does not apply to longshore workers. In amending the Act, Congress made it clear that it was disavowing Sieracki.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of Louisiana recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's strict-liability unseaworthiness remedy for covered longshore workers, replacing it with a negligence-based action against vessel owners under § 905(b).
Clay v. Daiichi Shipping · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · filed
Prior to 1972, vessel owners were strictly liable under the maritime doctrine of unseaworthiness for injuries sustained by longshore workers due to unsafe conditions on a vessel. See Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946). Although absolutely liable to injured longshore workers, vessel owners were able to shift the costs in certain instances by recovering from the stevedore employers on the theory that they had breached an expressed or implied warranty of workmanlike performance. See Ryan Stevedoring v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133 (1956). Stevedores could thus be held liable for both tort damages and workers’ compensation. This frustrated the very purpose of the LHWCA, which trades tort immunity for fixed no-fault compensation liability. To eliminate this inconsistency, which some commentators dubbed the “tortured liability triangle,” Congress in 1972 amended the LHWCA. See 1 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law, § 7-10, at 435 (2d ed.1994). The extensive 1972 amendments preserved the longshoreman’s statutory compensation remedy against the stevedore-employer, increased the level of compensation, did away with the vessel owner’s strict liability for a vessel’s unseaworthiness and abrogated the vessel owner’s right of contribution against the stevedore. See Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., SA, 512 U.S. 92, 97-98, 114 S.Ct. 2057, 129 L.Ed.2d 78 (1994). Amended § 905(b), however, retained the longshore worker’s third-party action against the vessel owner but required that it be based on a vessel owner’s negligence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of Michigan recognized that the 1972 LHWCA displaced Sieracki's extension of the unseaworthiness remedy to covered longshore workers and held that merely doing a seaman's work no longer entitled a nonseaman to that remedy.
Isrow v. "a MODO MIO" · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · filed
Although the Supreme Court in Sieracki extended the duty of seaworthiness to certain longshoremen based upon the fact that such longshoremen were “doing a seaman’s work and incurring a seaman’s hazards,” Sieracki, 328 U.S. at 99, 66 S.Ct. at 879, the Supreme Court has ((since recognized that Congress’s enactment of the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905, effectively overruled their decision in Sieracki See Edmonds, 443 U.S. at 262, 99 S.Ct. at 2765.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The New York Appellate Division, First Department recognized and applied the 1972 LHWCA amendments as displacing Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for a covered longshore or harbor worker, limiting the worker's vessel claim to negligence.
Emanuel v. Sheridan Transportation Corp. · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department · filed
In 1972, the LHWCA was amended to overrule Seas Shipping Co. v Sieracki (328 US 85 [1946]). Sieracki extended a shipowner’s obligation of seaworthiness, a strict liability doctrine, to longshoremen. Consequently, the right of longshoremen to sue nonemployer vessel owners was not barred by the LHWCA, which dealt exclusively with longshoremen’s rights vis-a-vis their employers. As amended, the LHWCA provides that non-seaman maritime workers who receive no-fault workers’ compensation payments from their employers for injuries sustained in the course of their employment are precluded from seeking any other remedy against their employers (33 USC § 905 [a]). In addition, a longshoreman’s right to recover against a vessel owner pursuant to the strict liability doctrine of seaworthiness was abolished. Instead, the right to recover from a vessel owner was limited solely to a negligence action (see 33 USC § 905 [b]; see also Scindia Steam Nav. Co., Ltd. v De Los Santos, 451 US 156 [1981]).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The New York Appellate Division recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for covered longshore workers against vessel owners, leaving negligence as the vessel-based remedy under section 905(b).
Lee v. Astoria Generating Co. · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · filed
Nineteen years after the enactment of the LHWCA, the Supreme Court held, in Seas Shipping Co. v Sieracki (328 US 85 [1946]), that a longshoreman could recover from a third-party shipowner for the vessel’s unseaworthiness (a claim based on strict liability for the stevedoring company’s negligence). . . . Congress overruled the Sieracki-Ryan rule for “vessels” with the 1972 addition of section 905 (b).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of Wisconsin recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for longshore workers covered by the Act and dismissed the covered worker's unseaworthiness claim.
White v. Fincantieri Bay Shipbuilding Company, Inc · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin · filed
While the Supreme Court attempted to extend the warranty of a seaworthy ship to longshoremen in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85 (1946), Congress subsequently overruled the extension of this duty in its amendments to the Longshore Act in 1972.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eastern District of North Carolina recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for workers covered by the Act.
Baum v. PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. · United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina · filed
In 1972, however, Congress amended the LHWCA to abolish the warranty claim described in Sieracki for anyone covered by the Act.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Court of Appeal recognized that the 1972 LHWCA amendments displaced Sieracki's unseaworthiness remedy for workers covered by the Act, while holding that workers outside the Act's coverage retain the remedy.
Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club · California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight · filed
Congress amended the Longshore Act to “eliminate the shipowner’s liability to the longshoreman for unseaworthiness and the stevedore’s liability to the shipowner for unworkmanlike service resulting in injury to the longshoreman—in other words, to overrule Sieracki and Ryan.” . . . This analysis shows that workers not covered by the Longshore Act retain their rights under Sieracki.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace