Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
61 L. Ed. 2d 521, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 41, 443 U.S. 256 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act did not alter the traditional maritime rule of joint and several liability. A shipowner remains liable for the full amount of damages suffered by a longshoreman that is not attributable to the longshoreman's own negligence, even when the stevedore-employer is concurrently negligent.
Facts:
- Compagnie Generale Transatlantique owned the S.S. Atlantic Cognac, which was docked at a terminal in Portsmouth, Virginia.
- The shipowner hired Nacirema Operating Co., a stevedoring company, to unload cargo from the vessel.
- Stanley Edmonds was a longshoreman employed by Nacirema Operating Co.
- While working aboard the S.S. Atlantic Cognac, Edmonds was instructed by a member of the ship's crew to remove a jack from a large cargo container.
- As Edmonds went behind the container, another longshoreman employed by Nacirema backed a truck into the container, causing it to roll and pin Edmonds against a bulkhead, resulting in injury.
- Edmonds received workers' compensation benefits for his injury from his employer, Nacirema, under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA).
Procedural Posture:
- Stanley Edmonds sued the shipowner, Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, in Federal District Court for negligence.
- A jury found total damages of $100,000 and apportioned fault as 10% to Edmonds, 70% to the stevedore, and 20% to the shipowner.
- The District Court entered judgment against the shipowner for $90,000, reducing the total damages only by Edmonds' 10% negligence.
- The shipowner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the District Court's judgment, holding that the 1972 Amendments required the shipowner to be liable only for its 20% proportionate share of the damages.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, is a shipowner's liability for damages caused by its negligence to be reduced by the proportionate fault of the longshoreman's stevedore-employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No. A shipowner's liability for damages is not reduced by the proportionate fault of a concurrently negligent stevedore; the traditional maritime rule holding the shipowner responsible for the full amount of damages less the plaintiff's own negligence remains in effect. The Court reasoned that neither the text nor the legislative history of the 1972 Amendments to the LHWCA indicates any congressional intent to abrogate the well-established maritime rule of joint and several liability. Congress's primary goals were to overrule the specific judicial doctrines of unseaworthiness established in Sieracki and indemnity in Ryan, not to fundamentally alter third-party negligence actions. The legislative history suggests an intent to treat vessels like land-based third parties, who are typically subject to joint liability. Adopting a proportionate fault rule would create an inequity for the injured longshoreman, who would be forced to bear the loss from the stevedore's statutorily-immune negligence, a result Congress did not intend.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
Yes. A shipowner's liability should be reduced by the proportionate fault of the stevedore to avoid an unfair and unreasonable result. The majority's holding requires a shipowner found 20% negligent to pay 90% of the damages, while the stevedore found 70% negligent pays nothing beyond its workers' compensation liability, which it then recoups from the longshoreman's award. This outcome is inequitable and provides inadequate incentives for stevedores to maintain safe working conditions. The Court possesses the judicial power to fashion a fairer, more logical rule of comparative negligence in admiralty law, and nothing in the 1972 Amendments prohibited it from doing so. A rule of proportionate fault would align with congressional intent to make shipowners liable for their own negligence, not that of the stevedore, and would not be unjust to the longshoreman, who would still receive a combination of damages and guaranteed statutory benefits.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of joint and several liability in maritime tort law concerning longshoremen, clarifying that the 1972 LHWCA amendments were targeted and not a wholesale adoption of proportionate fault. The ruling places the financial risk of a stevedore-employer's concurrent negligence and statutory immunity squarely on the negligent third-party shipowner, protecting the longshoreman's ability to achieve a full recovery. It demonstrates the Court's deference to Congress and its reluctance to judicially alter long-standing common law principles that Congress appeared to have considered and left intact during major statutory reforms. The decision maintains a clear, though sometimes harsh, liability rule that influences risk allocation and insurance practices in the maritime industry.
