Northeast Marine Terminal Company, Inc. v. Caputo

PETITIONER:Northeast Marine Terminal Company, Inc.
LOCATION:North Carolina Board of Agriculture

DOCKET NO.: 76-444
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 432 US 249 (1977)
ARGUED: Apr 18, 1977
DECIDED: Jun 17, 1977

Angelo C. Gucciardo – for respondents Caputo and Blundo
E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. –
E. Barrett Prettyman – for petitioner International Terminal Operating Co., Inc
Frank H. Easterbrook – for respondent, Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court
William M. Kimball – for petitioners Northeast Marine Terminal Co. et al.

Facts of the case


Media for Northeast Marine Terminal Company, Inc. v. Caputo

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – April 18, 1977 in Northeast Marine Terminal Company, Inc. v. Caputo

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – June 17, 1977 in Northeast Marine Terminal Company, Inc. v. Caputo

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion of the Court in 76-444 and the consolidated case 76-454, Northeast Marine Terminal against Caputo and the related case will be announced by Mr. Justice Marshall.

Thurgood Marshall:

These consolidated cases here on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit required that we determine the extent of coverage provided by the Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.

Prior to 1972, the Act covered only injuries that occurred on the navigable waters of the United States.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers who were injured on the land were ineligible for federal compensation and had to rely exclusively on state compensation remedies.

Using the water’s edge as a line of demarcation, however, prove to be unsatisfactory for these amphibious occupations whose work is performed on both the ship and the shore.

Accordingly in 1972, Congress changed the scope of the coverage.

It retained the so-called “situs test” which looks to the location of the injured, but it enlarged the coverage areas to include in addition to the water, piers, wharf and terminals.

It also added a so-called “status test” which require that the injured employee be engaged in maritime employment including as relevant to these cases longshoreman and other persons engaged in longshoring operations.

At issue in these cases is whether respondents, Caputo and Blundo injured while working on the New York waterfront met these requirements of the amended Act.

For the reasons stated and an opinion filed with the clerk today, we find that they did and affirmed the judgment.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Mr. Justice Marshall.