P.C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford
United States Supreme Court
444 U.S. 69, 100 S.Ct. 328, 62 L.Ed.2d 225, 1979 AMC 2319 (1979)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Diverson Ford (plaintiff) was employed as a warehouseman by P.C. Pfeiffer Co. (defendant) to fasten vehicles onto railroad cars at a port in Texas for transportation to inland locations. The vehicles were unloaded from vessels by longshoremen before being placed on the railroad cars. Will Bryant (plaintiff) was employed as a cotton-header by Ayers Steamship Co. (defendant) to deliver cotton to a port in Texas, after which longshoremen would load the cotton onto ships. Both Ford and Bryant were injured while on land at the ports where they were employed. Ford and Bryant filed claims under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Both claims were denied by administrative-law judges, who held that neither Ford nor Bryant was covered by the LHWCA under the point-of-rest theory, which held that the statute only covered work moving goods directly onto or off of a vessel. The Benefits Review Board reversed both decisions. The court of appeals affirmed the reversal, rejecting the point-of-rest theory and holding that all workers directly involved in the loading and unloading of vessels were covered by the LHWCA. Ford’s and Bryant’s cases were consolidated, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, 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.
