Czaplicki v. The S.S. Hoegh Silvercloud/Concurrence Frankfurter

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, concurring.

The disposition of a case is of prime importance to the parties. How a result is reached concerns the rational development of law. I agree with the Court's disposition of this case, but I would dispose of the main issue-the nature of Czaplicki's interest that survives his acceptance of compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 52 Stat. 1164, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.-on the basis of the analysis made in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 46, 48. The reasoning of that case seems to me to carry out the scheme of the legislation with appropriate consistency.

'So far as concerns the tortfeasor's liability to the     employee beyond the amount of workmen's compensation, no      agreement between the tortfeasor and the employer can      prejudice the employee, because, although it is true that, by      accepting compensation, the employee assigns his claim      against the tortfeasor to the employer or insurer, the      assignee holds it for the benefit of the employee so far as      it is not necessary for his own recoupment. The assignee is     in effect a trustee, and, although it is true that the      statute gives him power to compromise the whole claim, he      must not, in doing so, entirely disregard the employee's      interest.' 152 F.2d 46, 48.

Although this suit was brought directly against the tortfeasor, the Court directs that Travelers, the subrogee insurer, should be made a party. Since I deem the proper theory on which Czaplicki may recover despite his compensation award to be Travelers' fiduciary responsibility, I would direct reconstruction of this proceeding so that it should be against Travelers, while the vessel would be retained as a party.