| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal (1958), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a longshoreman who was injured while working on a barge owned by his employer, Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal. The plaintiff, Joseph Glus, argued that he had been ordered to work in an unsafe environment which led to him falling into the hold of the ship and sustaining serious injuries. He claimed negligence under Section 5(b) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The defendant contended they were immune from such claims due to being both owner and operator of vessel where injury occurred. The court held that an employer could be sued for damages if it also acted as a vessel owner or operator when its negligence caused injury to an employee; thus rejecting their claim for immunity based on dual capacity as employer-vessel owner/operator. This decision clarified employers’ liability under LHWCA, establishing that they can be held accountable not only as employers but also in any other capacities through which their actions may cause harm.
In the dissenting opinion for Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to allow a plaintiff to recover damages under federal law was inconsistent with previous rulings and undermined state authority. He contended that Congress had not intended for federal courts to have jurisdiction over such cases when it passed the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). Instead, he believed this legislation aimed at providing uniformity in railroad workers’ injury claims across states rather than expanding federal court jurisdiction. Furthermore, he emphasized that FELA did not create new rights but merely provided an additional remedy for injured employees who could already seek compensation under state laws. Therefore, according to him, if a claim is barred by a relevant state statute of limitations then it should also be barred in federal court even though there might be no equivalent limitation period under FELA itself.