Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Komanta v Global Associates, Inc [1984] TTLawRp 6; 8 TTR 418 (19 January 1984)

8 TTR 418

TAKI KOMANTA, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GLOBAL ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee

Civil Appeal No. 372

Appellate Division of the High Court

Marshall Islands District

January 19, 1984

Appeal from judgment for defendant in negligence action brought by crewmember of tugboat for injuries occurring while tug was being maneuvered into dock. The Appellate Division of the High Court, Hefner, Associate Justice, held that though the trial court gave an erroneous reason for granting its judgment, since the plaintiff could not prevail in a negligence action, as the cause of action arose in admiralty, and even if construed as a maritime "unseaworthiness" claim, the proper action was against the owner of the ship, as opposed to its operator, therefore the judgment for defendant was affirmed.

1. Admiralty-Unseaworthiness-Generally

The term "unseaworthiness", in the context of suits to recover for personal injuries, is broad enough to include almost all types of operating negligence in the navigation and management of the ship.

2. Admiralty-Unseaworthiness-Generally

An "unseaworthiness" claim must be brought against the owner of a vessel and not the shipowner's agent.

3. Admiralty-Unseaworthiness-Generally

"Unseaworthiness" claim may be brought against charterer and not owner of a vessel, only if the owner had completely and exclusively relinquished possession, command, and navigation to the charterer, and the charterer was in effect a demise or bareboat charterer.

4. Admiralty-Unseaworthiness-Particular Cases

Corporation which operated and maintained vessel under ultimate control and command of the U.S. Army was not liable under an "unseaworthiness" claim as a demise or bareboat charterer.

5. Admiralty-Unseaworthiness-Particular Cases

In negligence action brought by employee of tugboat against the corporation which operated and maintained the tugboat, for injuries which occurred in harbor while approaching the dock, judgment for defendant was affirmed, even though the trial court gave an erroneous reason for granting the judgment, since the plaintiff could not prevail in a negligence action since the cause of action was in admiralty, and even if construed as a maritime "unseaworthiness" claim, the proper action was against the owner of the ship, as opposed to its operator.