Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp.
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 282, 72 S.Ct. 277, 96 L.Ed. 318, 1952 AMC 1 (1952)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Halcyon Lines (defendant) hired Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp. (Haenn) (defendant) to make repairs on one of Halcyon’s ships. One of Haenn’s employees, Salvador Baccile (plaintiff) was injured onboard while performing work on these repairs. Baccile sued Halcyon for damages, alleging negligence and the unseaworthiness of the vessel. Halcyon brought Haenn into the suit as a third-party defendant, alleging that Haenn was contributorily negligent for Baccile’s injuries. The parties agreed to a $65,000 judgment to Baccile to be paid by Halcyon. During a contribution proceeding to determine each defendant’s degree of fault, the jury held that Haenn had been 75 precent responsible and Halcyon 25 percent. The district court judge, however, refused to allow this jury determination, holding that there was a general rule for maritime torts that each joint tortfeasor must pay half of the damages. The court of appeals agreed that a right of contribution existed but found that Haenn could not be compelled to pay more than it would have had to pay if Baccile had brough a workers’-compensation claim against it. The issue of the right of contribution came before the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, 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.
