Facts
- Albert Howlett, a longshoreman employed by a stevedore in Philadelphia, was injured while unloading bags of cocoa beans from the M/V Presidente Ibanez.
- During unloading, a draft of bags was lifted, exposing an area of the tween deck; Howlett jumped down to the deck and slipped on clear plastic sheeting placed beneath the cargo.
- Howlett suffered serious injuries and could not return to longshore work.
- It was customary to use paper and plywood to protect cocoa beans from condensation on steel decks; both sides agreed plastic was improper because it could worsen condensation.
- Evidence indicated an independent stevedore in Guayaquil, Ecuador placed the plastic under the cargo; the vessel had supplied the plastic and other stowage materials.
- Howlett asserted the plastic was not visible because it was covered by dirt and debris and alleged the vessel negligently failed to warn of the hazard.
- Howlett sued the vessel owner under § 5(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) based on the vessel’s “turnover duty” to warn.
Issues
- Under LHWCA § 5(b), when does a vessel’s turnover duty to warn require warning of a latent hazard in a cargo stow created by an independent loading stevedore?
- Absent actual knowledge, does the turnover duty to warn impose a duty on the vessel to inspect cargo stowage to discover such hazards?
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Birkdale Shipping Co.
- The Court held the turnover duty to warn of latent hazards in cargo stow is narrow.
- The duty generally applies only to hazards unknown to the stevedore and neither obvious to nor anticipated by a skilled stevedore performing its work competently.
- Absent actual knowledge, the vessel has a duty to warn only if reasonable care required the vessel to inspect for and discover the hazard.
- The Court found no basis to infer actual knowledge from the vessel’s supplying the plastic or crew presence during loading, and no showing that reasonable care required an inspection that would have revealed the plastic’s placement.
Legal Principles
- LHWCA § 5(b) imposes on a vessel a turnover duty of ordinary care to deliver the ship and equipment in a condition permitting an expert stevedore to conduct cargo operations with reasonable safety.
- The turnover duty to warn requires warning of latent hazards in areas turned over to the stevedore only when the hazards are known or should be known to the vessel and are not known to the stevedore.
- The warning duty generally does not extend to hazards that would be obvious to, or anticipated by, a competent stevedore in the performance of its work.
- When the hazard arises from stevedore-created cargo stowage, the vessel has no general obligation to inspect in detail; absent actual knowledge, a duty arises only where reasonable care imposes an obligation to inspect for and discover the hazard.
- The scope of vessel duties under § 5(b) reflects Congress’s post-1972 allocation of primary day-to-day cargo-operation safety responsibility to stevedores rather than vessels.
Conclusion
The Court affirmed judgment for the vessel, holding that the LHWCA turnover duty to warn is limited to latent hazards not known, obvious, or reasonably anticipated by a skilled stevedore, and that absent actual knowledge the vessel must warn only when reasonable care required inspection and discovery of the hazard.