Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Webb, 1977 — 429 U.S. 1121 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Webb
429 U.S. 1121·Supreme Court of the United States·1977
Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari and set case for oral argument. · with whom The Chief Justice joins,
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 76-676.
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Webb.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari and set case for oral argument.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice Powell,]
Mr. Justice Powell,
with whom The Chief Justice joins,
dissenting.
Respondent, captain of a vessel anchored in Seward, Alaska, left the ship and- — -with two crew members — went into town to pick up ship’s provisions at the local bus station. Not surprisingly for Seward in January, walking conditions were hazardous due to accumulations of snow and ice. While standing at the bus station, checking off the supplies being loaded into a truck, respondent slipped and fell, sustaining injuries.
Respondent sued in the District Court, claiming that the failure of petitioner to provide special safety boots or shoes denied respondent a safe place to work, and rendered his vessel “unseaworthy.” He recovered $40,000, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, remanding only for a determination whether the award should be reduced for contributory negligence on the part of respondent.
The doctrine of “seaworthiness,” on which this recovery was predicated, has been extended beyond all reason. I can think of no case that goes quite this far. I would reverse summarily.