Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States
398 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
Facts
While the United States Coast Guard vessel Tamaroa was being overhauled in a floating drydock in Brooklyn’s Gowanus Canal, a seaman named Lane returned from shore leave late at night, intoxicated. He turned wheels on the drydock wall, opening valves that controlled the flooding of the drydock's tanks. As a result, the ship listed, slid off its blocks, and fell against the wall. Parts of the drydock sank, and the ship partially sank, causing significant damage but no loss of life or personal injury. The drydock owner, Bushey, sought compensation for the damage.
Procedural history
The drydock owner, Bushey, sought compensation from the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court granted compensation, ruling that sovereign immunity was waived under the Federal Tort Claims Act, despite Bushey's libel under the Public Vessels Act. The District Court found the Tamaroa was an 'inert mass' and not 'causing a collision' under the Public Vessels Act. The United States appealed this decision, and the Circuit Court first addressed the jurisdictional issue, finding that the Public Vessels Act did apply, establishing appellate jurisdiction.
Issue
Is the United States liable under the doctrine of *respondeat superior* for the damage caused by a seaman's intentional, but not employer-serving, actions while returning to his vessel? Specifically, were the seaman's actions within the scope of his employment, even if not motivated by a purpose to serve the master?
Holding
Yes, the court held the Government responsible for the damage caused by the seaman's actions. The judgment of the district court finding liability was affirmed.
Rule
The court rejected a strict application of the 'motive test' for *respondeat superior*, which requires an employee's conduct to be actuated by a purpose to serve the master. Instead, *respondeat superior* rests on the principle that a business enterprise should be responsible for accidents that are characteristic of its activities. An employer is liable for risks, including negligent or intentional acts, that arise 'out of and in the course of' employment, even if the precise action was not foreseeable. The foreseeability in this context relates to the general risks inherent in the employment, acknowledging that employees bring their human qualities, including carelessness and emotional tendencies, to work.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.