delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action by a shipowner, Italia Societa per Azioni di Navigazione (Italia), against a contracting stevedore company, Oregon Stevedoring Company (Oregon), to recover indemnity for breach of the stevedore’s implied warranty of workmanlike service. The issue presented is whether the warranty is breached where the *316stevedore has ■ nonnegligently supplied defective equipment which injures one of its employees during the course of stevedoring operations.

I.

The petitioner, Italia, is the owner of the vessel M. S. Antonio Pacinotti. The respondent, Oregon, agreed to render stevedoring services for Italia in all ports along the Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Under the contract between the companies Oregon was to have exclusive rights to and control over the loading and discharge of cargoes aboard Italia’s vessels1 and was to “furnish all necessary labor and supervision and all ordinary gear for the performance of [these] services . . . , including winch drivers and usual appliances used for stevedoring.” Italia was to furnish and maintain in safe and efficient working condition suitable booms, winches, blocks, steam, lights and so forth. The agreement provided that the stevedoring company would be responsible for damage to the ship, cargo, and for injury or death of any person caused by its negligence, and that the steamship company would be responsible for the injury or death of any person or damage to property arising from its negligence or by reason of failure of the ship’s gear and equipment.2

*317During the course of Oregon’s stevedoring operations in Portland, one of its longshoreman employees, Griffith, was injured on the M. S. Antonio Pacinotti when a tent rope snapped. The rope, permanently attached to a hatch tent used to protect cargo from rain, was furnished by Oregon pursuant to its obligation to supply ordinary gear necessary for the performance of stevedoring services. The injured longshoreman sued the shipowner in a state court for negligence and unseaworthiness3 and recovered a judgment against Italia upon a general verdict. Italia satisfied the judgment and thereupon brought this suit in a Federal District Court for indemnity from Oregon. The District Court found that the basis for Griffith’s recovery was not negligence on the part of the shipowner but a condition of unseaworthiness created by the rope supplied by Oregon, which was found defective and unfit for its intended use. However, the District Court disallowed indemnity because Italia had *318failed to prove negligence on the part of the stevedore company, since the defective condition of the rope was not apparent. That court viewed the contractual provision rendering Oregon liable for injuries caused by its negligence as an express disclaimer against an implied warranty of workmanlike service. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with one judge dissenting, affirmed, but solely on the ground that a stevedore’s implied warranty of workmanlike service is not breached in the absence of a showing of negligence in supplying defective equipment. 310 F. 2d 481. Because of a conflict between this decision and the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Booth S. S. Co. v. Meier & Oelhaf Co., 262 F. 2d 310, and the importance of the question involved, we granted certiorari. 372 U. S. 963. For the reasons stated below, we have determined that the absence of negligence on the part of a stevedore who furnishes defective equipment is not fatal to the shipowner’s claim of indemnity based on the stevedore’s implied warranty of workmanlike service.

In Ryan v. Pan-Atlantic Corp., 350 U. S. 124, the landmark decision in this area, it was established that a stevedoring contractor who enters into a service agreement with a shipowner is liable to indemnify the owner for damages sustained as a result of the stevedore’s improper stowage of cargo. Although the agreement between the shipowner and stevedore was silent on the subject of warranties and standards of performance, the Court found that the essence of the stevedore’s contract is to perform “properly and safely.” “Competency and safety . . . are inescapable elements of the service undertaken.” This undertaking is the stevedore’s “warranty of workmanlike service that is comparable to a manufacturer’s warranty of the soundness of its manufactured product,” 350 U. S., at 133-134, a warranty generally deemed to cover defects not attributable to a manufac*319turer’s negligence.4 See also Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser, 358 U. S. 423, 428-429.

The Court further distinguished in Ryan between contract and tort actions, stating that the shipowner’s suit for indemnification was not changed “from one for a breach of contract to one for a tort simply because recovery may turn upon the standard of the performance of petitioner’s stevedoring service,” 350 U. S., at 134, and pointedly declined to characterize the stevedore’s conduct as negligent, notwithstanding that discussion in the opinion below centered on concepts of active and passive negligence on the part of the shipowner and stevedore.5 Although in Ryan the stevedore was negligent, he was not found liable for negligence as such but because he failed to perform safely, a basis for liability including negligent and nonnegligent conduct alike.

Subsequent decisions have made clear that the stevedore’s obligation to perform with reasonable safety extends not only to the stowage and handling of cargo *320but also to the use of equipment incidental thereto, Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co., 355 U. S. 563, including defective equipment supplied by the shipowner, Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser, supra, cf. Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc., 364 U. S. 421, and that the shipowner’s negligence is not fatal to recovery against the stevedore. “ [I] n the area of contractual indemnity an application of the theories of ‘active’ or ‘passive’ as well as ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ negligence is inappropriate.” Weyerhaeuser, supra, at 569. And last Term in Reed v. The Yaka, 373 U. S. 410, we assumed, without deciding, that a shipowner could recover over from a stevedore for breach of warranty even though the injury-cáusing defect was latent and the stevedore without fault. We think that the stevedore’s implied warranty of workmanlike performance applied in these cases is sufficiently broad to include the respondent’s failure to furnish safe equipment pursuant to its contract with the shipowner, notwithstanding that the stevedore would not be liable in tort for its conduct.6

Oregon argues, however, that the imposition in Ryan of liability on the stevedore in warranty rather than tort was necessitated by the Court’s previous decision in Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp., 342 U. S. 282, which held that maritime principles of contribution between joint tortfeasors prevailing in collision cases were not applicable in suits for contribution by a shipowner against stevedore companies. It further *321urges that negligence on the part of the stevedore company or its employees was present in all the above cases, and that the Court characterized the warranty in post-Ryan decisions as one entailing an obligation to perform with reasonable safety and reasonable competency. However, the stevedore’s obligation established in Ryan was not merely an escape from the no-recovery consequences of Halcyon, as is evidenced by the fact that recovery of contribution between joint tortfeasors and recovery of indemnity for breach of warranty proceed on two wholly distinct theories and produce disparate results.7 See American Stevedores v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446. Recovery in contribution is imposed by law and is measured by the relative fault of the joint tortfeasors or shared equally between them, The North Star, 106 U. S. 17; The Max Morris, 137 U. S. 1; Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling Refitting Corp., supra; while recovery in indemnity for breach of the stevedore’s warranty is based upon an agreement between the shipowner and stevedore and is not necessarily affected or defeated by the shipowner’s negligence, whether active or passive, primary or secondary. Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co., supra. And the description of the stevedore’s obligation as one of performance with reasonable safety is not a reference to the reasonable-man test pertaining to negligence, but a delineation of the scope of the stevedore’s implied contractual duties. The implied warranty to supply reasonably safe equipment may be satisfied with less than absolutely perfect equipment;8 however, the *322issue of breach of the undertaking does not turn on whether the contractor knew or should have known that his equipment was safe, but on whether the equipment was in fact safe and fit for its intended use. As the Court has aptly said with respect to the shipowner’s duty to furnish a seaworthy vessel, a duty which is imposed by law:

“What has been said is not to suggest that the owner is obligated to furnish an accident-free ship. The duty is absolute, but it is a duty only to furnish a vessel and appurtenances reasonably fit for their intended use. The standard is not perfection, but reasonable fitness; not a ship that will weather every conceivable storm or withstand every imaginable peril of the sea, but a vessel reasonably suitable for her intended service.” Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U. S. 539, 550.

We do not believe a rope designed to withstand three to five times the pressure exerted on it when it gave way satisfies the standard of reasonable safety. And the District Court specifically found that the rope was unfit for the purpose for which it was intended and that the injury to Griffith was the natural consequence of its breakage.

Oregon, a specialist in stevedoring, was hired to load and unload the petitioner’s vessels and to supply the ordinary equipment necessary for these operations. The defective rope which created the condition of unseaworthiness on the vessel and rendered the shipowner liable to the stevedore’s employee was supplied by Oregon, and the stevedoring operations in the course of which the longshoreman was injured were in the hands of the employees of Oregon. Not only did the agreement between the shipowner place control of the operations on the stevedore company, but Oregon was also charged under the contract with the supervision of these operations. Although none of these factors affect the ship*323owner’s primary liability to the injured employee of Oregon, since its duty to supply a seaworthy vessel is strict and nondelegable, and extends to those who perform the unloading and loading portion of the ship’s work, Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85, cf. Pope & Talbot v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, they demonstrate that Oregon was in a far better position than the shipowner to avoid the accident. The shipowner defers to the qualification of the stevedoring contractor in the selection and use of equipment and relies on the competency of the stevedore company.9

True the defect here was latent and the stevedore free of negligent conduct in supplying the rope. But latent defects may be attributable to improper manufacture or fatigue due to long use and may be discoverable by subjecting the equipment to appropriate tests. Further the stevedore company which brings its gear on board knows the history of its prior use and is in a position to establish retirement schedules and periodic retests so as to discover defects and thereby insure safety of operations. See Booth S. S. Co. v. Meier & Oelhaf Co., supra. It is considerations such as these that underlie a manufacturer’s or seller’s obligation to supply products free of defects and a shipowner’s obligation to furnish a seaworthy vessel.10 They also serve to render a tort standard of negli*324gence inapplicable to the stevedore’s liability under its warranty of workmanlike service. For they illustrate that liability should fall upon the party best situated to adopt preventive measures and thereby to reduce the likelihood of injury. Where, as here, injury-producing and defective equipment is under the supervision and control of the stevedore, the shipowner is powerless to minimize the risk; the stevedore is not.

Where the shipowner is liable to the employees of the stevedore company as well as its employees for failing to supply a vessel and equipment free of defects, regardless of negligence, we do not think it unfair or unwise to require the stevedore to indemnify the shipowner for damages sustained as a result of injury-producing defective equipment supplied by a stevedore in furtherance of its contractual obligations. See Alaska S. S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396, 401 (dissenting opinion).

Both sides press upon us their interpretation of the law in regard to the scope of warranties in nonsales contracts, such as contracts of bailment and service agreements. But we deal here with a suit for indemnification based upon a maritime contract, governed by federal law, American Stevedores, Inc., v. Porello, supra, in an area where rather special rules governing the obligations and liability of shipowners prevail, rules that are designed to minimize the hazards encountered by seamen, to compensate seamen for the accidents that inevitably occur, and to minimize the likelihood of such accidents. By placing the burden ultimately on the company whose default caused the injury, Reed v. The Yaka, 373 U. S. 410, 414, we think our decision today is in furtherance of these objectives.

II.

The District Court declined to pass on the issue decided above since it found that the implied warranty of workmanlike performance was negated by the provision in *325the agreement rendering Oregon liable for personal injuries resulting from its negligence. The Court of Appeals declined to pass on the latter question, its finding that the warranty did not extend to nonnegligent conduct rendering a resolution of it unnecessary. The effect of the express assumption of liability for negligence provision in the contract on the existence of the implied warranty has not been briefed or argued in this Court. Accordingly, the issue remains for the Court of Appeals to decide. The judgment below is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.'

with whom

Today’s decision is commanded neither by Ryan Steve-doring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S. S. Corp., 350 U. S. 124, and its progeny, nor by the general law of warranty. In Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp., 342 U. S. 282, and Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, we held that the system of compensation which Congress established in the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act1 as the sole liability of a stevedoring company to its employees prevented a shipowner from shifting all or part of his liability to the injured longshoreman onto the stevedoring company, the longshoreman’s employer. Ryan held no more than that the shipowner could recover over from the stevedoring company, by invoking the legal formula of warranty, where there had been a finding that the stevedoring company had been negligent.2 In the present case there is *326an express finding that the stevedoring company was not negligent.

Moreover, the Court here expands the general law of warranty in a way which I fear will cause us regret in future cases in other areas of the law as well as in admiralty. There is no basis in past decisions of this or any other court for the holding that one who undertakes to do a job for another and is not negligent in any respect nevertheless has an insurer’s absolute liability to indemnify for liability to injured workers which the party who hired the job done may incur.

Finally, the contract under which the parties dealt here provided that the stevedoring company was to be liable for personal injuries resulting from its negligence, while the shipowner was to be liable for injury caused by its own negligence “or by reason of the failure of ship’s gear and/or equipment.” This provision appears on its face to put the burden of liability for unseaworthiness, which was the basis of the worker’s recovery here, on the shipowner, leaving negligence as the only basis on which the stevedoring company could be held liable. The District Court so held. ' The contract is before us, and we are as competent to interpret it now, without remanding to the Court of Appeals, as we are to invoke “policy” reasons in order to expand Ryan and impose new financial burdens on stevedoring companies in plain violation of the policy Congress adopted in the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.

For these and other reasons cogently expressed in Judge Hamlin’s opinion for the Court of Appeals, 310 F. 2d 481, I dissent.