Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp.
400 U.S. 494 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A shipowner's warranty of seaworthiness is not breached when a longshoreman is injured by the single, isolated, and unforeseeable negligent act of a fellow longshoreman, as such an act does not constitute a condition of unseaworthiness of the vessel.
Facts:
- The petitioner, Usner, a longshoreman, was working on a barge alongside the S.S. Edgar F. Luckenbach to load cargo.
- Usner's job was to secure cargo bundles to a sling lowered from the ship's boom, which was operated by a fellow longshoreman.
- During one lift, the winch operator did not lower the sling far enough, and Usner signaled for it to be lowered more.
- In response, the winch operator lowered the sling too far and too fast.
- The sling struck Usner, knocking him to the deck of the barge and causing injuries.
- Neither before nor after the incident was there any defect or problem found with the ship's winch, boom, sling, or any other equipment.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Usner sued the respondent ship owner and charterer in a federal district court for damages.
- Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing a single negligent act could not constitute unseaworthiness.
- The District Court (trial court) denied the respondents' motion for summary judgment.
- The District Court certified the order for an interlocutory appeal.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) allowed the appeal, reversed the District Court's decision, and directed that summary judgment be granted in favor of the respondents.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a single, isolated act of operational negligence by a fellow longshoreman, which causes an injury but does not create an unseaworthy condition in the ship or its equipment, render the vessel unseaworthy and the shipowner liable for damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. A single and isolated act of operational negligence does not render a ship unseaworthy. The Court reasoned that liability for unseaworthiness is wholly distinct from liability for negligence. Unseaworthiness is a 'condition' of the vessel, its gear, its crew, or its method of stowage being unfit for its intended purpose. In contrast, negligence is an isolated act. The petitioner's injury was not caused by any defective or unsafe condition of the ship or its equipment, but solely by the isolated, personal negligent act of his fellow longshoreman. To hold that this single act rendered the ship unseaworthy would be to subvert the fundamental distinction between the two legal concepts that the Court has repeatedly emphasized in prior cases like Mitchell v. Trawler Racer.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The negligent use of sound ship's equipment should render the vessel unseaworthy. The dissent argued that precedent, particularly cases like Mahnich and Crumady, established that the negligent use of equipment, creating an unsafe situation, constitutes unseaworthiness. The dissent accused the majority of ignoring the sturdy growth of the 'operational negligence' doctrine and making new law simply because of a change in the Court's membership. In the dissent's view, the negligent operation of the winch created an unseaworthy condition at the moment of the act, and prior decisions like Mascuilli compelled a finding of liability.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. While expressing his personal disagreement with the broad expansion of the unseaworthiness doctrine, Justice Harlan argued that he was bound by precedent. He stated that in his view, the Court's prior decision in Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser could not be justly distinguished from the present case. Therefore, for the sake of legal consistency, he believed the Court should have found the vessel unseaworthy and that the majority's decision would only compound confusion in this area of law.
Analysis:
This decision created the 'operational negligence-unseaworthy condition' dichotomy, significantly limiting the scope of a shipowner's strict liability for unseaworthiness. By distinguishing a single negligent act from a continuous or inherent unsafe condition, the Court halted the doctrine's expansion toward absolute liability for any stevedore's mistake. This ruling created considerable confusion in lower courts trying to determine when a negligent act was momentary versus when it created a 'condition.' The legal uncertainty generated by this case was a major factor leading to the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which ultimately replaced a longshoreman's unseaworthiness claim with a statutory negligence action against the vessel owner.
