J. Gregory Carwie, conservator for and on behalf of Emil Harris v. Peter Knudsen, A/S (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-08-900682). Affirmed. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:08/24/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2012 1100697 J. Gregory Carwie, c o n s e r v a t o r f o r and on b e h a l f o f Emil H a r r i s v. Peter Knudsen A/S Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-08-900682) Court PER CURIAM. See R u l e 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) AFFIRMED. Malone, a n d (a) ( 2 ) ( C ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. NO OPINION. C.J., and Woodall, Main, J J . , concur. Bolin, Murdock, Shaw, a n d 1100697 S t u a r t and Parker, J J . , dissent. Wise, J . , r e c u s e s h e r s e l f . 2 1100697 STUART, J u s t i c e J. (dissenting). Gregory Carwie, P e t e r K n u d s e n A/S conservator ("Knudsen") for Emil i n the Mobile Harris, Circuit Court, s e e k i n g damages f o r i n j u r i e s H a r r i s s u f f e r e d i n a f a l l performing repairs on t h e M/V c a r g o s h i p , w h i l e i t was the judgment i n drydock at a shipyard i n Mobile, United Inc. The m a j o r i t y i n f a v o r o f K n u d s e n ; however, reasons that f o l l o w I r e s p e c t f u l l y The States District this 1252, 1256 case i n In re (S.D. A l a . f o r the dissent. Court for the D i s t r i c t of Alabama p r o v i d e d the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l for while V i n l a n d Saga, a Knudsen-owned H a r r i s o n B r o t h e r s Drydock & R e p a i r Yard, affirms sued P e t e r K n u d s e n A/S, 710 F. Southern background Supp. 2010): " A t a l l times r e l e v a n t h e r e t o , Knudsen, a Danish c o r p o r a t i o n , owned t h e M/V V i n l a n d SAGA, w h i c h i s a Danish g e n e r a l cargo v e s s e l . T h i s v e s s e l has two w o r k i n g c a r g o h o l d s , Number One H o l d f o r w a r d and Number Two H o l d a f t , w h i c h were s e p a r a t e d i n t o two d e c k s , a l o w e r h o l d and a ' t w e e n d e c k . ' I n o r d e r t o e n t e r Number One H o l d f r o m t h e w e a t h e r d e c k / m a i n d e c k , a c c e s s must be made t h r o u g h an o p e n i n g on t h e main/weather deck. In o r d e r t o t r a v e l from the main/weather deck t o the bottom of the cargo h o l d , a p e r s o n w o u l d n e e d t o d e s c e n d an a c c e s s l a d d e r v i a a s m a l l o p e n i n g o r h a t c h c o v e r on t h e m a i n d e c k . The l a d d e r f r o m t h e m a i n d e c k s t o p p e d a t t h e ' t w e e n deck' which c o n s i s t e d of a ledge or ' c a t w a l k ' running around the p e r i m e t e r of the h o l d . The ' t w e e n d e c k ' was a p p r o x i m a t e l y s e v e n f e e t f r o m t h e 3 2d 1100697 b o t t o m ( t a n k t o p ) o f t h e h o l d and a b o u t f o u r f e e t wide. The ' t w e e n d e c k ' was comprised of metal p l a t e s w h i c h c o u l d be o p e n e d t o a l l o w f u l l use o f the cargo h o l d , i . e . from the bottom of the cargo h o l d (sometimes r e f e r r e d t o as t h e ' t a n k t o p ' ) a l l t h e way t o t h e m a i n h a t c h c o v e r s on t h e w e a t h e r / m a i n deck. I f t h e ' t w e e n d e c k ' s ' f l o o r p l a t e s were removed, t h e l e d g e o r c a t w a l k was open t o t h e b o t t o m of the cargo h o l d or tank top. A f t e r c l i m b i n g down the a c c e s s l a d d e r from the main deck t o the 'tween d e c k , ' a p e r s o n w o u l d have t o w a l k a few feet f o r w a r d and d e s c e n d a s e c o n d l a d d e r t o t h e b o t t o m o r tank top. " I n e a r l y M a r c h 2006, t h e V i n l a n d SAGA l o a d e d a cargo of heavy anchor chains i n B i l b a o , Spain. Wh When t h e a n c h o r c h a i n was l o a d e d i n B i l b a o , t h e ' t w e e n d e c k s ' were open a l l o w i n g t h e c h a i n t o f i l l up most of the cargo h o l d . J o h n S o r e n s o n and Captain H o v g a a r d were t h e c a p t a i n s and J o h n A n d r e a s s e n was the c h i e f engineer aboard the v e s s e l d u r i n g the voyage from B i l b a o . C a p t a i n Sorenson t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e crew p u t l a s h i n g s t o s e c u r e t h e ' t w e e n d e c k ' p l a t e s i n p l a c e p r i o r t o the sea voyage from B i l b a o to the U n i t e d S t a t e s . In route to Port Forchon, the V i n l a n d SAGA s u f f e r e d a b r e a k d o w n i n i t s p r o p u l s i o n s y s t e m n e a r t h e Bahamas. A f t e r b e i n g t o w e d s e v e r a l times, the v e s s e l u l t i m a t e l y a r r i v e d i n M o b i l e , Alabama." (Capitalization The M/V in original; citations to record omitted.) V i n l a n d Saga a r r i v e d a t t h e H a r r i s o n B r o t h e r s i n Mobile on A u g u s t 21, 2006. shipyard Harrison Brothers personnel the s h i p ' s o f f i c e r s then j o i n t l y i n s p e c t e d the s h i p to t h e work t h a t n e e d e d t o be c o m p l e t e d , and, the M/V Vinland Saga was moved t o 4 survey on A u g u s t 30, drydock so that and 2006, repairs 1100697 could begin. The M/V V i n l a n d Saga's s i x - m a n crew r e m a i n e d o n b o a r d t h e ship while actively time. i t was i n d r y d o c k u n d e r g o i n g r e p a i r ; t h e c r e w was engaged i n p e r f o r m i n g The crew shipyard separate d i d n o t work personnel; on t h e same p r o j e c t s however, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d s h i p ' s crew a n d s h i p y a r d p e r s o n n e l ship's cargo pipefitter repairs during holds. On that both the had p r o j e c t s i n both o f the September 2006, by H a r r i s o n Harris, a r e m o v i n g t h e f i r e - l i n e p i p i n g f r o m t h e M/V V i n l a n d Saga. This r e q u i r e d H a r r i s t o d e s c e n d t o t h e b o t t o m o f t h e Number One H o l d . time, tasked 28, with and, was as d i d Brothers task by t r a d e , this H a r r i s was a c c o m p a n i e d i n t h i s t a s k by a welder, as t h e y d e s c e n d e d i n t o t h e Number One H o l d f o r t h e f i r s t H a r r i s , upon r e a c h i n g t h e tween d e c k , s t e p p e d a s i d e t o g i v e t h e w e l d e r some room t o come down t h e l a d d e r . In doing so, H a r r i s s t e p p e d o f f o f t h e unguarded tween-deck l e d g e and fell approximately suffering a severe seven feet head injury s u r g e r i e s and a l e n g t h y Because received of workers' the t o the bottom that of the hold, has r e q u i r e d multiple rehabilitation. circumstances compensation 5 of benefits h i s injury, under Harris the f e d e r a l 1100697 L o n g s h o r e a n d H a r b o r W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t ("the LHWCA"), 33 U.S.C. § 901 e t s e q . , a s o p p o s e d t o t h e A l a b a m a W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t , § 25-5-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code traditional state workers' 1975. compensation s t a t u t e s , Like t h e LHWCA s e t s f o r t h a c o m p e n s a t i o n scheme f o r i n j u r e d l o n g s h o r e m e n a n d s h i p y a r d w o r k e r s t h a t i s g e n e r a l l y t h e i r e x c l u s i v e remedy f o r on-the-job injuries. However, § 905(b) o f t h e LHWCA permit a covered worker t o a s s e r t a negligence the claim owner o f a s h i p on w h i c h t h e w o r k e r i s i n j u r e d , against stating: "In t h e event o f i n j u r y t o a p e r s o n c o v e r e d under t h i s caused by t h e n e g l i g e n c e anyone otherwise thereof, party may b r i n g " entitled to then recover an a c t i o n a g a i n s t chapter such person, o r damages such v e s s e l by reason as a t h i r d 1 On A p r i l initiated of a vessel, does 30, 2008, an a c t i o n Carwie, against as c o n s e r v a t o r Knudsen pursuant for Harris, to § 905(b), a s s e r t i n g , among o t h e r c l a i m s , t h a t H a r r i s ' s i n j u r i e s were t h e r e s u l t o f Knudsen's n e g l i g e n c e Saga. Instead initiated a as t h e owner o f t h e M/V V i n l a n d o f f i l i n g an a n s w e r t o t h a t c o m p l a i n t , limitation-of-liability action i n the Knudsen United " V e s s e l " i s d e f i n e d i n 33 U.S.C. § 902(21) t o i n c l u d e t h e " v e s s e l ' s owner, owner p r o h a c v i c e , a g e n t , o p e r a t o r " 1 6 1100697 States D i s t r i c t which Court subsequently f o r the Southern D i s t r i c t entered state-court proceedings an order while limiting i t considered o f Alabama, t h e scope certain of federal issues. U l t i m a t e l y , however, t h e f e d e r a l i s s u e s r e q u i r e d t h e federal district court to Carwie's s t a t e - c o u r t c l a i m : negligent. Both Carwie consider the issue central to Whether K n u d s e n h a d i n f a c t b e e n and Knudsen filed motions i n the f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a summary j u d g m e n t f o c u s i n g on t h a t i s s u e and s p e c i f i c a l l y w h e t h e r Knudsen h a d b r e a c h e d any o f t h e duties a s h i p o w n e r owes t o l o n g s h o r e m e n o r s h i p y a r d working aboard i t s s h i p . in i t s April As t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t 28, 2010, o r d e r starting point i n this i n S c i n d i a Steam 451 U.S. 156, outlined the longshoremen.'" Birkdale S.Ct. three ruling on t h o s e [Nav. Co., L t d . v. De L o s 1614, general 68 L.Ed.2d duties Co., S.A., 512 U.S. noted "'The Court's] Santos, 1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , ] which shipowners 710 F. Supp. 2d a t 1269 Shipping motions: r e g a r d must be [ t h e Supreme decision 101 workers owe (quoting Howlett 92, 98 (1994)). to v. The Supreme C o u r t has d e s c r i b e d t h e t h r e e g e n e r a l d u t i e s o u t l i n e d i n S c i n d i a Steam N a v i g a t i o n Co. v. De L o s S a n t o s , (1981), as f o l l o w s : 7 451 U.S. 156 1100697 "The f i r s t , w h i c h c o u r t s have come t o c a l l the 'turnover duty,' r e l a t e s to the c o n d i t i o n of the ship upon the commencement of stevedoring operations. See [ S c i n d i a ] a t 167. The s e c o n d d u t y , a p p l i c a b l e once s t e v e d o r i n g o p e r a t i o n s have b e g u n , p r o v i d e s t h a t a s h i p o w n e r must e x e r c i s e reasonable care to prevent i n j u r i e s to longshoremen i n areas that remain under the ' a c t i v e c o n t r o l of the vessel.' Ibid. The t h i r d d u t y , c a l l e d t h e ' d u t y t o i n t e r v e n e , ' concerns the v e s s e l ' s o b l i g a t i o n s w i t h regard to cargo operations i n areas under the p r i n c i p a l c o n t r o l of the independent stevedore. See i d . , a t 167-178." Howlett, 512 accordingly Knudsen regard in to precluded U.S. at reviewed support these the the of three entry 98. The evidence their federal district submitted by summary-judgment duties and held that court Carwie motions and with factual issues o f a summary j u d g m e n t i n e i t h e r party's f a v o r w i t h r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r K n u d s e n had b r e a c h e d t h e a c t i v e c o n t r o l d u t y or the d u t y t o i n t e r v e n e ; however, i t h e l d K n u d s e n was turnover that e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e g a r d t o duty. The the f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t court then concluded i t s o r d e r e n t e r i n g a p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f K n u d s e n by n o t i n g t h a t t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e s e c o n d and d u t i e s were b r e a c h e d r e m a i n e d t o be t r i e d . 710 third Scindia F. Supp. 2d at 1274. The record before t h i s C o u r t does n o t r e v e a l e x a c t l y what 8 1100697 transpired next i n the federal district c o u r t ; however, i t a p p a r e n t l y e l e c t e d t o l e t t h e s t a t e - c o u r t a c t i o n p r o c e e d and for the s t a t e c o u r t t o conduct t h e t r i a l the second and t h i r d four-day nonjury t r i a l Scindia duties t o determine whether h a d been b r e a c h e d . was h e l d b e g i n n i n g J a n u a r y A 10, 2 0 1 1 , and, a t t h e c l o s e o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e , K n u d s e n moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment i n i t s f a v o r . the t r i a l court granted that motion On F e b r u a r y 3, 2 0 1 1 , w i t h o u t making specific f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and w i t h o u t e x p l a i n i n g i t s r a t i o n a l e . subsequently appealed that judgment, a n d i t now f a l l s Carwie upon t h i s Court t o r e v i e w t h a t judgment pursuant t o t h e f o l l o w i n g standard of review: "Because t h e t r i a l j u d g e made no s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h i s C o u r t w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t the judgment. F i t z n e r P o n t i a c - B u i c k - C a d i l l a c , I n c . v. P e r k i n s & A s s o c s . , I n c . , 578 So. 2d 1061 ( A l a . 1991). Under t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment and a l l i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t i t c a r r y a presumption o f c o r r e c t n e s s and w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s ' f o u n d t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' F i t z n e r , 578 So. 2d a t 1063. 'The trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s u c h a c a s e w i l l be a f f i r m e d , i f , under any r e a s o n a b l e a s p e c t o f t h e testimony, there i s c r e d i b l e evidence t o support the j u d g m e n t . ' C l a r k v . A l b e r t v i l l e N u r s i n g Home, I n c . , 545 So. 2d 9, 13 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; s e e , a l s o , Norman v. S c h w a r t z , 594 So. 2d 45 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " Transamerica Commercial F i n . C o r p . v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 60 8 9 1100697 So. 2d 375, 378 ( A l a . 1992). judgment i n f a v o r Thus, t h i s C o u r t must a f f i r m t h e of Knudsen u n l e s s Carwie e s t a b l i s h e s that t h a t judgment i s " p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g , " t h a t i s , w h o l l y without c r e d i b l e evidence to support i t . below, I believe conclusion trial Carwie t h a t can be has met As w i l l be that made b a s e d on the burden; the only e v i d e n c e adduced i s t h a t Knudsen d i d i n f a c t b r e a c h the control explained at Scindia active- duty. The active-control duty was described as follows in Scindia: " I t i s a l s o a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e v e s s e l may be l i a b l e if i t actively involves itself in the cargo o p e r a t i o n s and n e g l i g e n t l y i n j u r e s a l o n g s h o r e m a n o r i f i t f a i l s t o e x e r c i s e due c a r e t o a v o i d e x p o s i n g l o n g s h o r e m e n t o harm f r o m h a z a r d s t h e y may e n c o u n t e r in areas, or from equipment, under the active control of the vessel during the stevedoring operation." 451 U.S. a t 167. established that Carwie argues t h a t the u n d i s p u t e d the Number One Hold was under evidence the active c o n t r o l o f K n u d s e n d u r i n g t h e t i m e t h e s h i p y a r d crew w o r k e d on t h e M/V care Vinland to breaching protect Saga and t h a t Knudsen f a i l e d t o e x e r c i s e Harris i t s d u t y t o him. from the open tween deck, due thus Knudsen argues t h a t i t p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t had 10 turned over c o n t r o l 1100697 of t h e e n t i r e s h i p t o t h e s h i p y a r d and t h a t t h e t r i a l judgment s h o u l d accordingly Knudsen's w i t n e s s e s under be a f f i r m e d . that although d i d t e s t i f y t h a t t h e M/V V i n l a n d Saga was the c o n t r o l of the shipyard injury, However, court's conclusory testimony a t the time of Harris's i s r e f u t e d by t h e a c t u a l evidence. It i s undisputed Vinland while i n this case t h a t t h e crew o f t h e M/V Saga was a c t i v e l y e n g a g e d i n i t s own r e p a i r p r o j e c t s t h e M/V Vinland members d i d t h e i r Harrison Brothers Hold. The Saga own work personnel testimony these facts i n drydock and t h a t i n t h e same g e n e r a l areas crew where w o r k e d , i n c l u d i n g t h e Number One provided c o m b i n a t i o n f a c t and e x p e r t illustrates was by J o n a s L y b o r g , witness, and a l s o under serves Knudsen's cross-examination as t h e b a s i s f o r K n u d s e n ' s argument as t o why i t d i d n o t have a c t i v e c o n t r o l over t h e tween-deck area: "Q. But the s h i p never took a step back here i n the c a r g o h o l d , d i d i t ? The s h i p c o n t i n u e d t o work i n t h e c a r g o h o l d t h e same a r e a where t h e s h i p y a r d was w o r k i n g ? "A. They were doing p a i n t i n g and c h i p p i n g i n v a r i o u s c a r g o h o l d s , y e s , a c c o r d i n g t o them. "Q. Day a f t e r d a y f r o m A u g u s t 1 4 t h on t h r o u g h t h e date of the a c c i d e n t , c o r r e c t ? 11 1100697 "A. I t ' s mentioned i n the yes, f r e q u e n t l y . l o g book s e v e r a l "Q. I t ' s an o n g o i n g "A. Looks l i k e i t . "Q. And you r e v i e w e d t h e h a n d o v e r r e p o r t b e f o r e the a c c i d e n t , c o r r e c t ? "A. I've "Q. And t h e c a p t a i n s a i d t h a t m a j o r work has b e e n g o i n g on i n t h e h o l d s p l u r a l , b o t h holds, correct? "A. Yes. "Q. And "A. No, the final. "Q. So i t ' s g o i n g t o c o n t i n u e i n t h e f u t u r e , o k a y . So i n t h a t s c e n a r i o t h e s h i p c o n t r o l s t h e same a r e a where t h e s h i p y a r d i s w o r k i n g , t h e c a r g o process? seen the handover r e p o r t , i t ' s not times, final handover yet, the night yes. correct? report indicates i t ' s not hold? "A. "Q. "A. No. Why not? C o n t r o l t h e a r e a w o u l d have meant t h a t t h e crew member w o u l d be s t a n d i n g on d e c k a t t h a t h a t c h , t h a t a c c e s s h a t c h t h a t was a l l b e f o r e and s a y , 'Mr. L y b o r g , you a r e g o i n g down t o t h e c a r g o hold. Okay, I a c c e p t t h a t . Mr. S m i t h , you want t o go down? No you a r e n o t g o i n g down.' So t h e y d i d n o t c o n t r o l t h e a c c e s s t o t h e c a r g o h o l d a t a l l . And on t h e s p e c i f i c m o r n i n g where 12 1100697 t h e a c c i d e n t h a p p e n e d , t h e r e was we d o n ' t e v e n know i f t h e r e was a n y c r e w members t h e r e . "Q. B u t t h e s h i p ' s crew u s e d t h e same a c c e s s as t h e shipyard, correct? "A. The crew u s e d t h e same a c c e s s , y e s . "Q. A n d w o r k e d i n t h e same h o l d ? "A. Worked i n t h e same h o l d , yes, c o r r e c t . " Thus, e v e n t h o u g h t h e s h i p ' s crew was a c t i v e i n t h e Number One H o l d where H a r r i s was i n j u r e d , K n u d s e n a s s e r t s t h a t i t d i d n o t have a c t i v e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e a r e a b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t e x e r c i s e exclusive although and u n f e t t e r e d control over the area. However, i t i s u n d o u b t e d l y t r u e t h a t Knudsen d i d n o t e x e r c i s e t h a t l e v e l o f c o n t r o l o v e r t h e Number One H o l d , i t i s e q u a l l y true that control the shipyard over workers t h e Number One d i d not exercise Hold t h e crew members a p p e a r t o have h a d a c c e s s t o t h e h o l d w h e n e v e r t h e y desired it. See Baham v. N a b o r s D r i l l i n g 499, 510 begun (W.D. L a . 2010) h i s inspection contractor] never because exclusive USA, L P , 721 F. Supp. 2d ("[A]lthough [the contractor] of the underside had complete of the crane, c o n t r o l over the ladder had [the and walkway i n q u e s t i o n . To t h e c o n t r a r y , t h i s e q u i p m e n t r e m a i n e d in [the shipowner] the c o n t r o l of 13 at the time of [the 1100697 contractor's] accident. [The s h i p o w n e r ' s ] e m p l o y e e s were n e v e r denied access t o the crane v i a the ladder during [the contractor's] The only finding that or pedestal inspection."). the evidence i s t h a t Knudsen and t h e s h i p y a r d supports, held that of shared c o n t r o l , courts the Scindia control over an a r e a shipyard workers. therefore, workers shared c o n t r o l t h e Number One H o l d , i n c l u d i n g t h e tween d e c k . s i m i l a r instances walkway In cases between with have c o n s i s t e n t l y a c t i v e - c o n t r o l duty i s i m p l i c a t e d i s shared over a ship's when crew a n d See, e . g . , G r e e n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 700 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1303 (M.D. F l a . 2010) ("The a c t i v e o p e r a t i o n s duty does not require Defendant's exclusive control; concurrent c o n t r o l i s s u f f i c i e n t t o invoke the broader duty of c a r e . " ) ; D a v i s v. P o r t l i n e T r a n s p o r t e s M a r i t i m e Internacional, 16 F.3d 532, 537 (3d C i r . 1994) ("The a c t i v e o p e r a t i o n s d u t y a p p l i e s t o those areas under the v e s s e l ' s i f the stevedore shares c o n t r o l with earlier time control."); F.2d the area t h e v e s s e l o r i f a t some the stevedore's exclusive a n d L a m p k i n v . L i b e r i a A t h e n e T r a n s p o r t Co., 823 1497, 1502 stating: was u n d e r a c t i v e c o n t r o l , even ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1987) "Establishing different 14 (discussing standards of S c i n d i a and liability, 1100697 contingent shipowner upon and the its the of the stevedore, policy perspective. ignore degree control exercised i s certainly by desirable the from a O t h e r w i s e , a s h i p o w n e r w o u l d be f r e e t o hazardous c o n d i t i o n s that d e v e l o p w i t h i n areas under e x c l u s i v e or concurrent c o n t r o l , pending n o t i f i c a t i o n by stevedore."). Thus, because t h e crew o f t h e M/V Vinland Saga shared a c t i v e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e Number One H o l d , Knudsen h a d a d u t y t o e x e r c i s e due c a r e t o p r o t e c t H a r r i s o n B r o t h e r s p e r s o n n e l Harris open from h a z a r d s i n t h a t and unguarded tween hazard; however, this caselaw i n d i c a t i n g that area. deck Harris argument an Knudsen open is fell refuted and argues t h a t i n t o was by unguarded the not decades deck p r e s e n t a h a z a r d t o s h i p y a r d w o r k e r s and l o n g s h o r e m e n like a of does unless t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e d e c k was l e f t open and u n g u a r d e d f o r an e s s e n t i a l p u r p o s e , s u c h as t o a l l o w f o r the loading record, of cargo. There i s no evidence in the however, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e tween d e c k h a d b e e n l e f t open and unguarded f o r any specific purpose at the time of accident. 15 Harris's 1100697 The U n i t e d States Court of Appeals explained the constitutes pursuant f o r the F i r s t test for determining whether a a hazard as follows i n a similar case Circuit condition brought t o § 905(b) o f t h e LHWCA, s t a t i n g : " G e n e r a l l y speaking, the f a c t - f i n d e r should assess t h e ' r e a s o n a b l e n e s s ' o f t h e v e s s e l owner's c o n d u c t 'by b a l a n c i n g t h e u s e f u l n e s s t o t h e [ v e s s e l ] o f t h e [allegedly] dangerous c o n d i t i o n and the burden i n v o l v e d i n c u r i n g i t a g a i n s t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y and s e v e r i t y o f t h e harm i t p o s e s . ' " Keller v. United States, ( q u o t i n g J o h n s o n v. A/S Cir. 1980) (emphasis 38 F.3d 16, 25 (1st I v a r e n s R e d e r i , 613 F.2d added in Keller)). Cir. 334, 348 1994) (1st Johnson is p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t t o the p r e s e n t case because i t d i s c u s s e s t h e s p e c i f i c d a n g e r an open and u n g u a r d e d tween d e c k p r e s e n t s and notes that the "reasonableness" c o n t i n u a t i o n o f pre-LHWCA a n a l y s i s i s merely law: "This approach f o r d e t e r m i n i n g the reasonableness of a s h i p b o a r d danger i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n the pre-1972 l a w c o n c e r n i n g open c a r g o h a t c h e s . W h i l e i t was n e g l i g e n c e f o r a v e s s e l t o l e a v e tween d e c k h a t c h c o v e r s open and t h e h a t c h u n l i g h t e d and u n g u a r d e d i f t h e h a t c h was n o t t o be l o a d e d w i t h c a r g o , the e x i s t e n c e of the very same c o n d i t i o n s d i d not c o n s t i t u t e n e g l i g e n c e i f t h e c a r g o was t o be l o a d e d i n t o t h e h a t c h , s i n c e an open h a t c h i s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e t a s k o f l o a d i n g and u n l o a d i n g a s h i p . Compare M i l l e r v. The S u l t a n a , 176 F.2d 203, 206 [ ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 4 9 ) ] , w i t h B a d a l a m e n t i v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 160 F.2d 422, 425-26 [ ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 4 7 ) ] . " 16 a 1100697 613 F.2d a t 348. Jadranska 1982) See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s F i d . & G u a r . Co. v. Slobodna ( i n which reasonableness Plovidba, Judge 683 F.2d 1022, 1026 Richard a n a l y s i s echoes Posner Carroll Towing that the a n a l y s i s used L e a r n e d Hand i n a 1947 m a r i t i m e - n e g l i g e n c e v. notes (7th C i r . this by Judge case, U n i t e d States Co., 159 F.2d 169, 173 (2d C i r . 1947)). Thus, i t i s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t a s h i p o w n e r i s n e g l i g e n t i n l e a v i n g a h a t c h o r d e c k open a n d u n g u a r d e d u n l e s s i t does so f o r an e s s e n t i a l p u r p o s e , s u c h as t h e l o a d i n g o r u n l o a d i n g o f cargo. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , K n u d s e n h a s i d e n t i f i e d no b e n e f i t i t received readily from n o t g u a r d i n g apparent that t h e open tween d e c k . the b u i l d e r o f t h e M/V I t i s also Vinland Saga r e c o g n i z e d t h a t an open a n d u n g u a r d e d tween d e c k was a h a z a r d , b e c a u s e s o c k e t s were c o n s t r u c t e d a l o n g t h e edge o f t h e l e d g e so t h a t a s t a n c h i o n a n d c h a i n b a r r i e r t h e tween d e c k was open. F.2d 128, 130-31 c o u l d be i n s e r t e d when See W o o d r u f f v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 710 ( 4 t h C i r . 1983) ("'The Navy o b v i o u s l y knew t h a t t h e r e was a h a z a r d i n t h i s a r e a b e c a u s e t h e y d e s i g n e d i n t h e i r p l a n s , when t h e y b u i l t t h e s h i p ... a s t a n c h i o n a n d r o p e system t o guard a g a i n s t t h a t opening.' 17 P l a c i n g t h e manual 1100697 s t a n c h i o n s as a b a r r i e r a g a i n s t working i n the effort." area falling (quoting the t r i a l Thus, t h e r e i s no [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ] o r anyone e l s e o v e r b o a r d r e q u i r e d a minimum court's order)). evidence indicating that there was u s e f u l r e a s o n f o r t h e t w e e n - d e c k l e d g e t o be u n g u a r d e d . a l s o a p p a r e n t t h a t a g u a r d c o u l d have b e e n i n s t a l l e d p l a c i n g any s i g n i f i c a n t b u r d e n upon K n u d s e n . without supra, built F.2d a t 1027, another maritime-negligence a longshoreman's f a l l f r o m an u n g u a r d e d and Co., case i n v o l v i n g open tween d e c k , i d e n t i f i e d v a r i o u s o t h e r l o w - c o s t ways s u c h an a c c i d e n t be into Furthermore, the U n i t e d S t a t e s Court of Appeals f o r the Seventh C i r c u i t i n U n i t e d S t a t e s F i d e l i t y & Guaranty 683 a It is As n o t e d t h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e f o r i n s t a l l i n g s u c h a g u a r d was the s h i p . of could prevented: "As t o ... t h e b u r d e n o f p r e c a u t i o n s , t h e r e were v a r i o u s ways t h e s h i p o w n e r c o u l d have p r e v e n t e d t h e accident. He c o u l d have l i t t h e h o l d , l o c k e d t h e h a t c h w a y l e a d i n g t o i t f r o m t h e w e a t h e r d e c k ... , r o p e d o f f t h e open h a t c h , o r p l a c e d a s i g n a t t h e hatchway (though the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h i s last p r e c a u t i o n may be d o u b t e d ) . " T h e r e was i t was a l s o s p e c i f i c evidence i n t h i s case i n d i c a t i n g p o s s i b l e t o use a rope guard t o p r o t e c t a g a i n s t o f f o f t h e tween d e c k o f t h e M/V 18 Vinland Saga. that falls 1100697 Finally, the f a c t that the b u i l d e r o f t h e M/V Saga deemed i t a d v i s a b l e t o i n c l u d e a b u i l t - i n chain system t o prevent falls into t h e open Vinland stanchion-andtween d e c k , as w e l l as t h e number o f l e g a l o p i n i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h f a l l s into open d e c k s , i n d i c a t e t h a t open and u n g u a r d e d d e c k s p o s e a n o t i n s i g n i f i c a n t p r o b a b i l i t y o f harm. harm resulting from a f a l l drop to a metal floor The p o s s i b i l i t y o f s e v e r e o f f an a p p r o x i m a t e l y i s self-evident. seven-foot Knudsen's argument t h a t o t h e r s s u c c e s s f u l l y n a v i g a t e d t h e tween d e c k w h i l e m o v i n g from the main deck to the bottom of the hold might be c o n s i d e r e d as an argument t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f harm p o s e d by t h e u n g u a r d e d l e d g e was effectively rejected no h a z a r d ; by other sufficiently however, courts. similar See, low t h a t there a r g u m e n t s have e.g., Jupitz v. was been National S h i p p i n g Co. o f S a u d i A r a b i a , 730 F. Supp. 1358, 1363 n. 9 (D. Md. 1990) worker working ("This i s n o t t o s a y , h o w e v e r , has not under circumstances unreasonably been injured similar encountered hazardous."). on previous conditions on those is that proof that occasions proof occasions M o r e o v e r , as n o t e d a while that the were not previously, s u c h an argument w o u l d f l y i n t h e f a c e o f d e c a d e s o f c a s e l a w 19 1100697 h o l d i n g t h a t t h e r i s k o f s e v e r e i n j u r y p o s e d by an unguarded open d e c k that is sufficiently probability. h i g h as t o o u t w e i g h even See J o h n s o n , 613 F.2d a t 342 ("The c o n c e r n i n g i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d by l o n g s h o r e m e n who open h o l d s o f s h i p s was t h a t t h e v e s s e l was low general rule f e l l i n t o the not n e g l i g e n t i n l e a v i n g c a r g o h a t c h e s open and u n g u a r d e d t o p e r m i t t h e l o a d i n g of cargo. See, e.g., M i l l e r v. The S u l t a n a , 176 F.2d 203, (2d C i r . 1 9 4 9 ) ; Ove F.2d 960, F.2d 15, 16 the vessel working 962 T y s k o v. R o y a l M a i l Steam P a c k e t Co., 81 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 3 6 ) ; Long v. S i l v e r L i n e , L t d . , 48 (2nd C i r . 1 9 3 1 ) . to leave deck 206 However, i t was cargo hatches unguarded on a worked. See, e.g., B a d a l a m e n t i v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 160 F.2d 422 (2d C i r . Omsk, 266 F. 200 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 2 0 ) ; West I n d i a P.S.S. Co. v. W e i b e l , 113 F. 169 the facts t h a t the unguarded s e r v e d no u s e f u l p u r p o s e h a t c h was and n o t t o be 1 9 4 7 ) ; The i f the p a r t i c u l a r open negligence for (5th C i r . 1902)."). and open tween deck and Weighing apparently and t h a t t h e l e d g e c o u l d have b e e n g u a r d e d w i t h a minimum o f e f f o r t a g a i n s t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f an a c c i d e n t and t h e o b v i o u s r i s k o f s e v e r e harm p o s e d by a fall, one can o n l y c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e u n g u a r d e d tween d e c k p r e s e n t e d 20 1100697 an u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k o f harm t o s h i p y a r d w o r k e r s t r a n s f e r r i n g ladders on t h e tween d e c k a n d was, t h e r e f o r e , Importantly, this conclusion cannot a hazard. be a v o i d e d merely because of the a p p l i c a t i o n here of the ore tenus standard review and because there was t e s t i m o n y t h a t some w i t n e s s e s d i d n o t c o n s i d e r to be a h a z a r d . I f there i n d i c a t i n g that the ship's and unguarded on crew had l e f t of Harris's n e c e s s a r y r e a s o n o r as an e s s e n t i a l p a r t of the t r i a l affirmed under evidence has been emphasized ship's that court would there i n the accident f o r some o f t h e i r work, t h e of course be due t o be However, and, i n f a c t , i s no e v i d e n c e record t h e tween d e c k open the ore tenus standard. identified, indicating t h e u n g u a r d e d tween d e c k was any e v i d e n c e the date judgment at t r i a l of no Knudsen such has e s t a b l i s h i n g that the c r e w was w o r k i n g i n t h e Number One H o l d a t a l l on t h e morning o f H a r r i s ' s a c c i d e n t before to i n d i c a t e that there deck unguarded. he f e l l , w h i c h w o u l d seem was no s p e c i a l p u r p o s e i n l e a v i n g t h e I disagree that the conclusory opinions of w i t n e s s e s who b e l i e v e t h a t a c o n d i t i o n does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a h a z a r d -- w i t h o u t any s u p p o r t i n g the relevant analysis evidence or consideration of -- i s s u f f i c i e n t 21 under the ore tenus 1100697 standard to support hazard, especially contradicted open and d e c k was duty decades the exercise from that due that that condition conclusory caselaw indicates holding area that care protect It failure the failed a c c o r d i n g l y u n s u p p o r t e d by t o be reversed. no-opinion to involving of falls J o h n s o n , 613 Parker, F.2d J., into at dissent in u n g u a r d e d and 342-48. concurs. 22 M/V do so, and tween-deck and ledge, The Knudsen i s i s therefore from the similar that injury. of due majority's contrast maritime open d e c k s . a Brothers which, I b e l i e v e , i s i n s t a r k jurisprudence tween crew o f t h e i n favor t h e e v i d e n c e and I respectfully affirmance, decades court a hazard. Harrison to guard the trial left K n u d s e n t h e r e f o r e had to a are decks unguarded over which the a p r o x i m a t e cause of H a r r i s ' s a c c i d e n t by that the i s not opinions apparent reason are hazard. i s , the judgment e n t e r e d to those of evidence that Saga s h a r e d a c t i v e c o n t r o l . personnel was when a h a z a r d i n an to breach, finding u n g u a r d e d f o r no Thus, Vinland by a See, cases e.g.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.