Streatch

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

In this opinion, the Court considers whether a longshoreman who is injured aboard a vessel as a result of an alleged defect in _a vehicle furnished by the vesselowner for loading and unloading cargo may assert a claim against the vessel-owner for strict liability in tort. The question arises as a result of the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the strict liability claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant’s principal argument is that a longshoreman’s strict liability claim against a vessel is barred by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1972 , now codified in pertinent part at 33 U. S.C. § 905(b)(Supp.1972). Counsel inform the Court, and the Court’s research confirms, that this is a question of first impression in this country.

The Court holds that a vesselowner may be sued by a longshoreman on a strict liability theory. The Court, however, does not have before it now all the facts which may ultimately be determinative of whether the doctrine of strict liability is applicable to this vesselowner in this ease. The Court, therefore, denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss,…