Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo
53 L. Ed. 2d 320, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 21, 432 U.S. 249 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), a worker's eligibility for compensation depends on a two-part test requiring that the injury occur on a maritime 'situs' and that the employee have the 'status' of a maritime employee. The 'status' test is met if the worker is engaged in the overall process of loading and unloading a vessel, including intermediate steps like stripping containers, or if the worker's occupation is one that spends at least some time in traditional longshoring operations.
Facts:
- Carmelo Blundo was employed as a 'checker' by International Terminal Operating Co. (ITO) at a pier facility in Brooklyn.
- Blundo's job was to check and record cargo as it was loaded onto or unloaded from vessels, barges, or containers.
- On January 8, 1974, Blundo was assigned to check cargo being 'stripped' (removed) from a container; the container had been taken off a vessel at another pier and transported overland.
- Blundo was injured when he slipped on ice on the pier while marking cargo that had just been removed from the container.
- Ralph Caputo was a longshoreman who was hired by Northeast Marine Terminal Co. as a 'terminal laborer' for the day.
- Caputo was assigned to help a consignee’s truck driver load cargo onto a truck.
- The cargo, which included cheese, had previously been discharged from a vessel at the terminal.
- Caputo was injured while rolling a dolly loaded with cheese into the consignee's truck.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondent Blundo sought compensation under the LHWCA, which an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted.
- The Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed the ALJ's award to Blundo.
- Respondent Caputo also sought and was awarded LHWCA compensation by an ALJ.
- The BRB affirmed the ALJ's award to Caputo.
- The employers in both cases, Northeast Marine Terminal Co. and International Terminal Operating Co., filed petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and affirmed the BRB's decisions, holding both workers were covered by the Act.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider both cases.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do longshoremen injured on a pier while handling cargo that has already been unloaded from a ship (or is destined for a ship) meet the 'situs' and 'status' requirements for coverage under the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. The 1972 amendments to the LHWCA created a two-part test for coverage based on the situs of the injury and the status of the employee, and both respondents satisfy this test. Congress intended to create a uniform compensation system for amphibious workers and eliminate the arbitrary 'water's edge' line for coverage, which had created harsh and incongruous results. The court rejected the employers' proposed 'point of rest' theory, which would have ended coverage once cargo was placed on a pier. For respondent Blundo, stripping a container is the 'functional equivalent' of unloading a ship's hold and is therefore a 'longshoring operation' under the Act, satisfying the status test. For respondent Caputo, the Act's focus is on occupations. Because Caputo was part of a longshoring gang and could be assigned to various tasks on the ship or shore, he qualifies as a longshoreman under the Act. To deny him coverage for one task but not another would revive the 'fortuitous' and shifting coverage that Congress sought to eliminate. Both injuries occurred on a covered situs—a terminal or pier adjoining navigable waters and customarily used for loading or unloading vessels.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the interpretation of 'maritime employment' under the amended LHWCA, thereby expanding federal compensation coverage to many shore-based waterfront workers. By decisively rejecting the restrictive 'point of rest' theory, the Court established that the 'status' test is not determined by the specific task performed at the moment of injury but by the overall nature of the worker's occupation and its connection to the loading and unloading process. This functional approach accommodates modern cargo-handling techniques like containerization and ensures that amphibious workers have continuous coverage, fulfilling Congress's intent to create a uniform and predictable system. The ruling provides a key precedent for interpreting the scope of LHWCA coverage in a way that avoids the arbitrary distinctions of pre-1972 law.
