unseaworthiness doctrine in New York

1985(See, Halcyon Lines v Haenn Ship Corp., 342 US 282 ; Cooper Stevedoring Co. v Kopke, Inc., 417 US 106 ; Kenny v Bacolo, 61 NY2d 642 .) In Ryan Co. v Pan-Atlantic Corp. ( 350 US 124 ), the Supreme Court held that a shipowner who had been found liable without fault based upon the doctrine of unseaworthiness, could assert a claim for indemnity against a stevedore employer based upon an alleged breach of an express or implied warranty of workmanlike performance.

1985(See, Halcyon Lines v Haenn Ship Corp., 342 US 282 ; Cooper Stevedoring Co. v Kopke, Inc., 417 US 106 ; Kenny v Bacolo, 61 NY2d 642 .) In Ryan Co. v Pan-Atlantic Corp. ( 350 US 124 ), the Supreme Court held that a shipowner who had been found liable without fault based upon the doctrine of unseaworthiness, could assert a claim for indemnity against a stevedore employer based upon an alleged breach of an express or implied warranty of workmanlike performance.

1985(See, Halcyon Lines v Haenn Ship Corp., 342 US 282 ; Cooper Stevedoring Co. v Kopke, Inc., 417 US 106 ; Kenny v Bacolo, 61 NY2d 642 .) In Ryan Co. v Pan-Atlantic Corp. ( 350 US 124 ), the Supreme Court held that a shipowner who had been found liable without fault based upon the doctrine of unseaworthiness, could assert a claim for indemnity against a stevedore employer based upon an alleged breach of an express or implied warranty of workmanlike performance.

1985(See, Halcyon Lines v Haenn Ship Corp., 342 US 282 ; Cooper Stevedoring Co. v Kopke, Inc., 417 US 106 ; Kenny v Bacolo, 61 NY2d 642 .) In Ryan Co. v Pan-Atlantic Corp. ( 350 US 124 ), the Supreme Court held that a shipowner who had been found liable without fault based upon the doctrine of unseaworthiness, could assert a claim for indemnity against a stevedore employer based upon an alleged breach of an express or implied warranty of workmanlike performance.

1978(See Goff v Econetics, Inc., 94 Misc 2d 869 .) Although some of the interrogatories herein may relate to the negligence cause of action, all may be sustained as relating to the unseaworthiness claim as well.

1975A prior court’s dismissal of the negligence claim on the merits, in this instance by a Federal court which under Federal procedure dismissed on the merits, precludes the plaintiff from litigating the unseaworthiness claim in another court (cf. De Coss v Turner & Blanchard, 267 NY 207 ; see Restatement, Judgments, § 63, Comment b, Illustration 4; §§ 64-65).

1973(See Victory Carriers v. Law, 404 U. S. 202 .) Additionally, since defendant neither possessed, owned, operated or had control of or responsibility for either the apparatus used in the loading process dr the pier itself, the cause of action for failure to provide a safe place to work is similarly without merit.

1962In upholding his right to recover, the court said (p. 711): “ In our opinion the libelant had a right of indemnity for injuries arising from an unseaworthy ship even though there was no means of anticipating trouble. ’ ’ The landmark case in the development of the doctrine of unseaworthiness is The Osceola ( 189 U. S. 158, 175 ) where the court stated: “ Upon a full review, however, of English and American authorities upon these questions, we think the law may be considered as settled upon the following proposition: # # # “ 2.

1962That the vessel and her owner are, both by English and American law, liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship.” In its opinion the court cited The Edith Godden ( 23 F. 43 ) as illustrative of the principle of unseaworthiness.

1962The court, in finding for the plaintiff on the doctrine of unseaworthiness, said (p. 849): “ This equipment, or lack of equipment, furnished by the stevedore, under the law is the responsibility of the shipowner.” In Grillea v. United States ( 232 F. 2d 919 [C.

1947The Supreme Court’s opinion carefully pointed out ( 328 U. S. at p. 89 ) that the precise question was “ whether the ship *336 owner’s obligation of seaworthiness extends to longshoremen injured while doing the ship’s work aboard but employed by an independent stevedoring contractor whom the owner has hired to load or unload the ship.” The court announced that the humanitarian policy of the unseaworthiness rule is not to be “ confined to seamen who perform the ship’s service under immediate hire to the owner, but extends to those who render it with his consent or by his arrangement.” In the pr