Reed v. the Yaka

Background

A longshoreman was injured while loading the steamship Yaka when a plank in a wooden pallet broke under him. He sued the ship in rem. Waterman was the shipowner; Pan-Atlantic was operating the vessel under a bareboat charter and was also the longshoreman’s employer. The district court found the ship unseaworthy and allowed recovery, but the Court of Appeals reversed, saying a ship cannot be held in rem unless someone was personally liable. The Supreme Court granted review.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act barred recovery when the employer also operated the ship under a bareboat charter. The majority treated a bareboat charterer as an owner pro hac vice who is personally liable for a ship’s unsafe condition. Citing earlier cases that preserved longshoremen’s traditional remedies and the court’s allowance of indemnity claims, the Court concluded the statute should not be read to deny protection to workers in these circumstances. The result: Pan-Atlantic could be held liable for the Yaka’s unseaworthiness and the in rem action against the ship was supported.

Real world impact

The decision preserves longshoremen’s ability to recover against a vessel for unsafe ship conditions even when their employer operates the ship. Employer-operators who run ships and employ dockworkers may face shipowner liability and can in turn seek indemnity from the party whose negligence caused the injury. The Court left open a separate question about whether an original owner can ever be entirely absolved by a bareboat charter.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Stewart, dissented, arguing the ruling undermines the Act’s exclusivity provision and that any change should be left to Congress.