Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo
United States Supreme Court
432 U.S. 249, 97 S.Ct. 2348, 53 L.Ed.2d 320, 1977 AMC 1037 (1977)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Carmelo Blundo (plaintiff) was a harbor worker employed by International Terminal Operating Co. (ITO) (defendant) at a pier in Brooklyn, New York. Blundo checked cargo as it was loaded or unloaded from vessels or containers and, depending on his day’s assignment, would work either on a ship or on shore. Blundo was injured when he slipped and fell on ice while checking cargo being removed from a container on the pier. Ralph Caputo (plaintiff) was a longshoreman hired by Northeast Stevedoring Co. (Northeast) (defendant) to work on ships on another Brooklyn pier, or at Northeast’s terminal facility. Like Blundo, Caputo worked either on a ship or on shore depending on his day’s assignment. Caputo was injured while loading cargo into a truck at Northeast’s terminal. Both Blundo and Caputo sought compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Administrative-law judges found that both Blundo and Caputo satisfied the requirements of the act, and the Benefits Review Board affirmed the compensation awards. ITO and Northeast appealed these decisions, and the court of appeals consolidated the two cases. The court held that both Blundo and Caputo were entitled to benefits under the act, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.