Federal Marine Terminals v. Burnside Shipping Co.
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 404, 89 S. Ct. 1144, 22 L. Ed. 2d 371 (1969)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Burnside Shipping Company (Burnside) (plaintiff) owned and operated the motor vessel Otterburn. Burnside contracted with Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. (Marine Terminals) (defendant) to provide Burnside with stevedoring services to load the Otterburn. Gordon McNeill was a stevedore supervisor employed by Federal Marine. The Otterburn’s chief officer ordered that the lids of several deep tanks installed on the ship’s deck be opened outward. This resulted in large gaps over the tanks. There were no guard railings around the gaps. McNeill was found dead at the bottom of one of the tanks. McNeill’s widow filed for and received benefits from Marine Terminals under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. McNeill’s widow also filed a wrongful-death action against Burnside. Burnside then separately filed an indemnification claim against Marine Terminals for any amounts it may have been found liable for under the wrongful-death action. Marine Terminals filed a counterclaim against Burnside, claiming that any amount that Burnside had to pay to McNeill’s widow was attributable to breaches of Burnside’s duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to Marine Terminal’s employees. The district court held that § 33 of the act made subrogation of McNeill’s widow’s claims Marine Terminal’s exclusive remedy against Burnside. The court of appeals affirmed, and Marine Terminal appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.