# Appendix — Daniel v. Skibs A/S Hilda Knudsen

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_0321%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1967
- **Citation:** 386 U.S. 990

## Text

Appendix.

' OPINION. nt. .
; : te April 28, 1966.
Josepu S. Lorp, III, J. _

On September 29, 1961, the SS ‘Concordia Fonn’’,
carrying a cargo of baled licorice consigned to MacAndrews
& Forbes, was being unloaded at the MacAndrews & Forbes
‘pier in Camden, N. J. The unloading procedure was as
follows: - a : Li Nene

_ Two twenty-two man gangs of ‘longshoremen, employed
by the.stevedoring firm of Murphy Cook Co., brought the
cargo from the hold of the vessel over the side to a landing :
stage. From there, the bales of licorice were loaded on
railroad flat cars which were on tracks on the pier. Each —
bale weighed about 350 pounds and about 200 bales per
hour were discharged from each of the two holds. ‘Phe most significant differenée hetween thes case and
all that have gone before it; so far as our ‘research reveals,
is that here the owner did not engage-either the stevedore

or its: employes. to do the work being performed by plain-
~ “tiff, although it did, in effect, engage-those ‘actually working

-. the, ship. The consignee, with the ship’s agreement, ‘en-

eaged Murphy Cook to. provide a twenty-two man gang to
bring the cargo from the vessel’s hold to the pier. How-
ever, defendant made an allowance against the freight bill

- for the .cost of this longshore labor. On the other hand, ©

the consigneg arranged directly with Murphy Céok for the
labor in plaintiff’s gang. The ship made no allowance for
this cost and had nothing whatsover to do with the arrange-

'ment.. The scope of the owner’s liability cannot be con-
_- stricted by delegation of its work but here. there was no

delegation. of the. ship’s work by the ship; the delegation,

if any; was’ by MacAndrews & Forbes. “The owner did
' “not*seek to. have this work done by others; the owner did

not-seek. the advantages of more modern divisions of .

__ labor; the owner did not engage others; plaintiff was not

employed ‘by the: owner’s consent or arrangement. Cer-
tainly, to extend the warranty to those with whom the

~ owner had no connection w ‘hatsoever would be at. least un-

preeedented, and we think unwarranted,
da ees . ; v I.

. pore v. Louritese. 344. F. 24.204 (C. A. 3, 1965),
‘the court directed its attention first to’ the determination

Appendix ) es 4g

of whether or not plaintiff was engaged in the service of |

’ the vessel, concluded that he was, and was.therefore en-
titled to the warranty of seaworthiness. It then became

peneenary to consider whether he was injured bya defect ~

in an ‘“‘appurtenance’’ of: the ship, for unseaworthiness
only applies to the ship and its appurtenances. The court
coxielided that the hopper‘was an appurtenance because

“it was an essential part of the unloading process.’’ Ibid.,
page 209. It seems to us that we do. not here need to
reach the second i inquiry. Having determined that plain-
tiff was not in the service of the vessel, it follows that he
_ was not covered by the warranty of seaworthiness. In

-this posture, even if-the i injury-causing instrumentality was
an appurtenance, there would be no liability absent a

negligent. breach of. duty. In short, the character of the .

rope as an appurtenance i is moot.
Defendants’ motion for judgment will be gxanted.

ORDER::

Aa Now, April 28, 1966, it is iii that the de-
fendants’ motion for judgment n.o.v. be and it -hereby is
- granted.

By THE COURT

“a

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_0321%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.