## Facts

- Frank E. Frasca, a longshoreman employed by a stevedore (International Terminal Operating Co.), was unloading cargo from the No. 4 hatch of the S.S. SANTA CLARA, owned by Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc.
- Access to the hatch was by an internal steel ladder in the hatch trunk; an escape-hatch ladder was also available as an alternative.
- Early in the workday, longshoremen observed the ladder rungs (and certain wires) were greasy; the condition worsened as workers repeatedly used the ladder and tracked grease onto it.
- Frasca used the ladder several times before the accident and was aware of the greasy condition throughout the day.
- No longshoreman, the stevedore, or the vessel’s crew cleaned the ladder, took corrective measures, or stopped work; none used the alternative escape-hatch ladder.
- In the afternoon, Frasca slipped on the top rung while descending and fell, suffering serious injuries.
- A jury, on special interrogatories, attributed fault as follows: vessel owner 40%, stevedore 50%, Frasca 10%; it found total damages of $21,000 and judgment entered against the vessel for $8,400 (40%).
- The vessel owner moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) under Rule 50(b), after previously moving for a directed verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) to permit a finding that the vessel owner breached a duty of reasonable care to a longshoreman when the ladder hazard was open and obvious and the stevedore controlled operations.
2. Whether, after the 1972 LHWCA amendments, a vessel can be liable in negligence for failing to remedy or intervene regarding an obvious condition known to, and addressable by, the stevedore and longshoremen.

## Decision

- The court granted the vessel owner’s JNOV motion, set aside the verdict against the shipowner, and entered judgment for the defendant.
- Applying the Rule 50 standard (viewing evidence and reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor), the court concluded no reasonable jury could find vessel negligence on the record.
- The court held the greasy ladder condition, though hazardous, was open and known to the longshoremen and stevedore, who had the ability and responsibility to avoid, correct, or halt work.
- The court found insufficient evidence that the vessel created the condition or engaged in independent negligent conduct requiring vessel intervention once stevedoring operations were underway.
- Because vessel negligence was not established as a matter of law, the jury’s comparative allocation of fault to the vessel could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Under LHWCA § 905(b) (as amended in 1972), a longshoreman’s remedy against a vessel is for the vessel’s negligence; the vessel does not owe a seaworthiness warranty to longshoremen.
- A vessel’s duty is one of reasonable care under the circumstances, and Congress intended primary responsibility for safety during cargo operations to rest with the stevedore who controls the work.
- In evaluating JNOV, the court does not weigh credibility and must deny the motion if there is evidence on which a reasonable jury could find for the non-movant; however, judgment is required when the evidence cannot legally support the verdict.
- Where a hazardous condition is open, obvious, and actually known to the longshoremen and stevedore, and they can avoid or remedy it (including by using available alternatives or stopping work), vessel liability for non-intervention is generally not supported absent proof of the vessel’s independent negligent conduct (e.g., creation of the hazard or unreasonable failure to act despite a duty to do so).

## Conclusion

The court vacated the jury’s award against the vessel owner and entered judgment for the defendant, holding that § 905(b) did not permit a finding of vessel negligence where the greasy ladder was an obvious, known hazard arising during stevedoring operations that the stevedore and workers could have avoided or corrected, and there was no sufficient evidence of independent negligence by the vessel.


Frasca v. Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc., 394 F. Supp. 1092 (D. Md. 1975)