Byron White

“ The facts are undisputed. When the accident happened, respondent Bill Law, a longshoreman employed by Gulf Stevedore Corp. in Mobile, Alabama, was on the pier driving a forklift loaded with cargo destined for the S.S. Sagamore Hill, a vessel owned by petitioner Victory Carriers, Inc., which was tied up at the pier. Law had picked up the load on the dock and was transferring it to a point alongside the vessel where it was to be subsequently hoisted aboard by the ship's own gear. The forklift was owned and under the direction of his stevedore employer. ”

“ The Court early upheld the power of States to provide workmen's compensation to longshoremen injured by accidents occurring on the dock, under the theory that since the pier is part of the land, application of state law here would not conflict with the uniform federal maritime law applied on navigable waters. ”

“ Without necessarily disagreeing with the proposition that the hazards of the longshoreman's occupation make him especially deserving of a remedy dispensing with proof of fault, [14] we are contrained to note that the longshoreman already has a remedy under state workmen's compensation laws that does not depend upon proving derelictions on the part of his employer. ”

“ The decision in Gutierrez turned, not on the 'function' the stevedore was performing at the time of his injury, but, rather, upon the fact that his injury was caused by an appurtenance of a ship, the defective cargo containers, which the Court held to be an 'injury, to person * * * caused by a vessel on navigable water' which was consummated ashore under 46 U.S.C. § 740. The Court has never approved an unseaworthiness recovery for an injury sustained on land merely because the injured longshoreman was engaged in the process of 'loading' or 'unloading.' [10] Nacirema Operating Co. ”

“ As Law returned toward the pickup point, the overhead protection rack of the forklift came loose and fell on him. He subsequently brought an action in a federal District Court against the ship and Victory Carriers, Inc., claiming that the unseaworthiness of the vessel and the negligence of Victory had caused his injuries. His claim invoked both the diversity jurisdiction of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and its admiralty and maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Victory filed a third-party complaint against Gulf for indemnity in the event Victory was held liable to Law. ”

“ In both these cases, the accident occurred on navigable water: both longshoremen were injured while in the hold of a ship by defective apparatus attached to the ship's gear.↑ The Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act does not cover seamen (who are defined there as 'master (s) or member (s) of a crew of any vessel,' 33 U.S.C. § 903 (a) (1) ) , and the compensation remedy provided by the Longshoremen's Act is a stevedore's exclusive remedy against his employer for shipboard injuries. ”

“ Perhaps such laws provide inadequate benefits, but we are poorly positioned to conclude that they do or for that reason to give special remedies to longshoremen when other employees operating forklifts for other employers in perhaps equally hazardous circumstances are left to the mercies of state law. ”

“ The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 36, 18 L.Ed. 125 (1866) ; Ex parte Phenix Insurance Co., 118 U.S. 610, 618-619, 7 S.Ct. 25, 28-29, 30 L.Ed. 274 (1886) ; Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co., 119 U.S. 388, 397, 7 S.Ct. 254, 258, 30 L.Ed. 447 (1886) ; Cleveland Terminal & Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S.S.C.o., 208 U.S. 316, 320, 28 S.Ct. 414, 415, 52 L.Ed. 508 (1908) . The gangplank has served as a rough dividing line between the state and maritime regimes. ”