Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson
Headline: Court affirms shipowner liability for a stevedore’s injury caused by broken loading gear brought aboard by a contractor, making it easier for longshore workers to recover damages.
Holding: The Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that a shipowner can be held liable when a stevedore is injured aboard a ship by unseaworthy loading equipment, even if that equipment was brought on board by the contractor.
- Affirms shipowners can be held liable for contractor-brought unseaworthy gear injuries.
- Shifts financial risk toward shipowners and may raise maritime operational costs.
- Encourages stronger insurance or inspection by stevedoring contractors.
Summary
Background
Petterson, a 73-year-old longshore foreman employed by Alaska Terminal and Stevedoring Company, was supervising loading of the S. S. Susitna for Alaska Steamship Company while the vessel was docked in navigable waters. A snatch block—an item commonly found in both ship and stevedore gear and treated below as brought aboard by the stevedoring company—broke while in proper use and crushed his leg. Petterson sued the shipowner in federal court for $35,000 claiming unseaworthiness; the trial court dismissed, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for damages, and the Supreme Court granted review.
Reasoning
The central question was whether a shipowner must answer for unseaworthiness of equipment that was not ship-owned but brought aboard by an independent stevedoring contractor. The per curiam decision affirmed the judgment below, citing prior cases (Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki and Pope & Talbot v. Hawn) that extended shipowner liability to stevedores. Justice Burton’s dissent argued those precedents do not support extending absolute liability to contractor-owned gear and urged that Congress, not the Court, should make such a change.
Real world impact
The ruling upholds recovery for a longshore worker injured by defective loading gear on a ship even when the gear was treated as belonging to the contractor. That outcome affects shipowners, longshore workers, and stevedoring contractors who may face altered risk allocation. The dissent noted Congress had already provided a compensation system in the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Burton, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Jackson, dissented, arguing the decision improperly extends the shipowner’s traditional liability and should be left to legislative action.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?