Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wallace S. Harwood, Jr. v. Partredereit Af 15.5.81, Wallace S. Harwood, Jr. v. Partredereit Af 15.5.81

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided September 5, 1991No. 90-2351, 90-2359Published

1DissentErvin, Chief Judge

The majority is clearly correct in its statement that workers who are covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Act, or LHWCA) are not entitled to the warranty of seaworthiness. 33 U.S.C.A. § 905(b) (1986). However, because I conclude that Appellant Harwood, as a harbor pilot, is not covered by the Act, I must part company with the majority as to all of its subsequent assertions with regard to the relation between harbor pilots and the Act. I find that the district court’s determination that harbor pilots such as Harwood retain access to the warranty of seaworthiness is…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Seas Shipping Co. v. SierackiSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
  3. Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  4. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. The OsceolaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API