# Petition for Rehearing — Patterson v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0559%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Rehearing - **Published:** January 1, 1971 - **Citation:** 401 U.S. 922 ## Text neers ot AD ae ROBERT WAYNE PATTERSON, , Petitioner, @ versus a 7 HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, ‘. Respondent. Potition for Rehearing on or Reconsideration of Petition © For Certiorari . Samuel C. Gainsburgh | 7 1718 Nat. Bank of cies Bidg. New Orleans, La. 70112 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER Of Counsel: © KIERR and GAINSBURGH New Orleans, Louisiana , o” TABLE OF CONTENTS TARLE OF CASES PETITION FOR REHEARING | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ° TABLE OF CASES | | Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson, 347 U.S. 396. 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.. Bd. 499° 1954) Crumady v. The J. H. Fiswer, 358 U.S, 423, 79S Cr. 445, 3 L.Ed. 2d 413 (1958) Mascuilli v. United States, 387 U.S. 237, 87 S.Ct. 1705, 18 L.Ed. 24 743 (1867) ) Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 80 . S.Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed. 2d 941 (1960) Patterson v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 5 Cir. 1970. 423 F.2d 883 * Pope & Talbot v. Hawn, 346 U-S. 406, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 (1954) | “Schell v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 395 F. 2d 678 (CCA 4 1968) Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki. 328 US. 85 Usner v. Luckenbach Overeses Carp. ___. US. __, 27 L.Ed. 2d 562, 91 S.Ct. (1971) Watz v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 431 F. 2d 100 (CCA 5, 1970) ao <> < IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 10970 ‘ No. 182 ROBERT WAYNE PATTERSON, ‘i Petitioner, versus HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Respondent. = Petition for Rehearing on or Reconsideration of ?e- tition for Certiorari TO THE HONORABLES THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Petitioner, Robert Wayne Patterson, respectfully petitions herewith for a rehearing on or a reconsidera- tion of his petition for certiorari for the following rea- sons: ; Subsequent to the filing of the original petition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has confirmed that its opinion herein constitues an abridg- ment of the traditional seaworthiness warranty that Your Honors have held protects shoreside employees domg traditional seamen’s work aboard vessels in navigation. i 2 In Wate v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,' the Court of Appeals states. : “This Circuit appears to have developed an- other doctrine with regard to repair contracts that would also exempt | the vessel owner]. Pat- terson v. Humble Ol] & Refining Oo., 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 683." (Emphasis added.) This “doctrine.” may it please Vour Honors, misap- plies the principles enunciated in Mitchell v. Trawler — Recer, Inc..* in Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson.* in Crumady vr. The J. H. Fiaser® and in Mascuilli v. United States* as recently interpreted in Usner vo. Lucken- bach Orerseas Corp” The “doctrine” developed by the Fifth Circuit is in diametric conflict with Pope & Taibot r. Harwn® and Schell vr. Chesapeake & O. R. Co.® Tt is now crystal clear that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit intends to, and does, distinguish be- breach it, while the former, such as petitioner, are not 80 protected. o This tinmovetive distinction is cleariy contrary to Mr. Justice Black's decisicy: in Pope & Talbot ¢. Havon'® wherein the Court was asked, but refused, to make a “We are asked, however, to distinguish this case from our holding (in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sierecki, 328 U. S. 65). Rt is pointed out thet | Sierecki was a ‘stevedore.’ Hawn was not. And — Hawn was not leading the vessel. On these grounds we are asked to deny Hawn the pro- tection we held the law gave Sieracki. These slight differences in fact cannot fairly justify the distinction urged as between the two cases. *** |Hawn's} need for protection from unsea- worthiness was neither mere nor less than that of the stevedores then working with him on the ship or of seamen who had been or were about to go on a voyage. All were subjected to the same danger. All were entitied to like treat- ment under law.”" (Emphasis edded) Petitioner suggests that his need for protection from the unsecured bearing cap that fell on him, a danger brought into play bv his co-employees’ removal of the chain fall, was no less than the need for protection of Messrs. Crumady"* and Mascuilli'* from the danger- “ges US. 412-413. , ‘20f Crumady v. The J.H. Fisser. supra. note 5. *°Of Mascuilli v. U.S. supra, note 6. £ conditions that were brought inte play by their longshoremen. Yet. if the instant deciston and its “doctrine” are allowed to prevail, petitioner will not have received “like treatment under law.” Por the reasons above mentioned and heretofore set forth, petitioner seeks rehearing on or reconsideration of his application for a writ ef certiorari, to the end that said application will be granted and the decision ‘of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will be reviewed and reversed, with petitioner's case being remanded to that Court for consideration of other legal issues presented by petitioner's appeal. Respectfully submitted, -e' 1718 Nat. Bank of Commerce Building . New Orleans, La. 70112 Attorney for Petitioner Of Counsel: KIERR and GAINSBURGH Samuel C. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0559%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.