Assignment on Maritime Law
Added on - 21 Apr 2020
Running head: MARITIME LAW1Maritime lawName:Institutional Affiliation:
MARITIME LAW2Maritime lawCase Citation:Stewart v. Dutra Construction CompanyParties: Willard Stewart, PlaintiffDutra Construction Company,DefendantFacts: The respondent Dutra Company was employed by states of Massachusetts to help inextension of a turnpike through a tunnel. Dutra owned the largest drench “super scoop” whichwas to dig the trench by removing silt from the ocean bed and dumping into one of its scows.Super scoop has ability to move is restricted and can only moves to places with the help of atugboat by controlling its anchor and cables (Bilová, 2016). When digging the Boston tunnel itonly moved 30-50 feet each few hours. Appellant Willard Stewart was recruited by Dutra to keepcheck the mechanical system on the super scoop, on the day of the accident one of the scows hadan engine break down and Stewart was fixing wires on the scow. The scow went into collisionwith the super scoop and as a result Stewart was seriously injured.Procedural History; Stewart sued the company under the Jones act accusing them ofnegligence yet he was a seaman and also under article 59b) of the Longshore And HarborWorker’s Compensation Act (LHWCA) which allows insured worker’s to take legal actionagainst ‘vessel” owner as a third party for an harm caused by the employer’s negligence.Dutra also filed a suit arguing that Stewart was not a seaman under Jones actclaim; he also disputed that super scoop was not a vessel as stated under Jones act. The Circuitgranted Dutra a ruling as a matter of law since the super scoop main work was construction andnot navigation also at the time of the accident it was not moving.