Facts
- Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. owned the M/S Jalaratna and hired Seattle Stevedoring Company to load cargo using the ship’s winches.
- A ship’s winch used to lower pallets allegedly had a defective braking mechanism that persisted for about two days.
- During loading, a lowered pallet struck a jack, spilling sacks into the hold where Lauro De Los Santos, a longshoreman, worked.
- The pallet was raised, and workers, including De Los Santos, cleared spilled cargo beneath it; additional sacks then fell from the raised pallet and injured him.
- The parties disputed whether the fall resulted from pallet movement or brake slippage and whether Scindia knew or should have known of the winch defect.
- De Los Santos sued the vessel under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) § 905(b), which permits negligence actions against a vessel but bars liability based on seaworthiness.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Scindia; the Ninth Circuit reversed, recognizing a broader ongoing vessel duty to inspect and remedy hazards during operations.
Issues
- What duties does a vessel owe longshore workers at turnover of the ship and its equipment to the stevedore, including warning obligations?
- After turnover, does the vessel have a general duty to supervise or inspect stevedoring operations for hazards that arise during cargo work?
- When, if ever, must a vessel intervene regarding an open and obvious or stevedore-known dangerous condition arising during stevedoring operations?
Decision
- The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held the vessel owes a turnover duty to provide a reasonably safe ship and to warn of hidden hazards known or discoverable with reasonable care that are not known or obvious to a competent stevedore.
- The Court rejected a general continuing duty to supervise or inspect stevedoring operations to discover and remedy dangers arising within the stevedore’s work.
- The Court recognized limited additional duties: reasonable care when the vessel actively involves itself in operations or retains control over areas, and a narrow duty to intervene when specific knowledge conditions are met.
- The Court directed lower courts to apply these standards to the disputed record concerning the winch defect and the vessel’s knowledge.
Legal Principles
- LHWCA § 905(b) authorizes longshoremen to sue a vessel only for negligence; vessel liability cannot rest on unseaworthiness.
- Turnover duty: the vessel must exercise ordinary care to turn over a ship and equipment in a condition permitting cargo work with reasonable safety and must warn the stevedore of hidden dangers known or that should be known with reasonable care and not known or obvious to a competent stevedore.
- No general post-turnover inspection/supervision duty: once cargo operations are entrusted to the stevedore, the vessel ordinarily may rely on the stevedore’s judgment and has no general duty to monitor or discover hazards arising during the stevedore’s work.
- Active-control duty: if the vessel actively controls parts of the operation or areas, it must use reasonable care as to those operations or areas.
- Duty to intervene (narrow): if the vessel has actual knowledge of a dangerous condition and actual knowledge that the stevedore is continuing in the face of that danger in a manner so obviously improvident that harm is likely, the vessel may be required to act.
Conclusion
The Court limited vessel liability under LHWCA § 905(b) to defined negligence duties—safe turnover and warning of hidden hazards, reasonable care when the vessel actively controls operations, and a narrow intervention obligation requiring actual knowledge and clearly unreasonable continuation by the stevedore—rejecting a broad continuing duty to inspect or supervise cargo operations.