## Facts

- Patrick J. Huck, a longshoreman employed by a stevedore, was killed after falling into a cargo hold aboard the M/V Makarska while the ship was in Milwaukee harbor.
- Huck’s survivors received benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), and the stevedore’s insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G), became the statutory assignee of the third-party claim.
- The ship was a bulk carrier with multiple holds connected laterally by hatchways at various deck levels; some holds had three deck levels above the main cargo space.
- After longshore work in a hold ended for the day, the crew typically closed the top hatch (eliminating light) and opened lower hatches to prepare for later cargo operations, leaving the hold area dark.
- On the morning of the accident, Huck worked on the upper ’tween deck of hold 1 with the upper hatch open for light and the hatch beneath closed.
- After lunch, the gang moved to other holds and did not return to hold 1 as part of their work.
- At some point later, Huck left the active work area, re-entered hold 1 (which was then dark), and fell through an open, unguarded hatch to the bottom; no witness saw the fall and no work-related reason for his return was established.
- USF&G sued the vessel owner, Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba (Plovidba), under § 905(b) for maritime negligence.
- A jury found Plovidba not negligent and allocated fault to Huck (75%) and the stevedore (25%); judgment was entered for Plovidba.

## Issues

1. Whether the vessel was negligent as a matter of law under LHWCA § 905(b) for leaving open, unguarded hatches in a dark hold accessible via lateral passageways.
2. Whether the jury was improperly instructed that the vessel’s safe-place duty applied only to areas where longshoremen were reasonably expected to be, and that the vessel had no general duty to supervise or answer for the stevedore’s safety practices.
3. Whether admitting evidence of a stevedore safety rule adopted after the accident required reversal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Plovidba.
- The court held the evidence permitted the jury to find no vessel negligence and rejected USF&G’s claim that negligence was established as a matter of law.
- The court upheld the challenged instructions as consistent with § 905(b)’s limited vessel duty and the allocation of safety responsibility to the stevedore.
- Any error in admitting evidence of a post-accident safety rule did not warrant reversal in the context of the full trial record.

## Legal Principles

- Under LHWCA § 905(b), a vessel’s liability to longshoremen is based on negligence—reasonable care under the circumstances—not a broad guarantee of safety.
- The vessel’s duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work is limited by foreseeability and location; it generally extends to areas where longshoremen are reasonably expected to be for work.
- A vessel ordinarily may rely on the stevedore to direct longshore operations and to implement and enforce safety rules for its employees, absent circumstances requiring vessel intervention.
- Whether a particular condition and accident were sufficiently foreseeable, and whether precautions were reasonable in light of probability and burden, are typically jury questions when competing inferences are supported by the evidence.
- Evidence of subsequent safety measures, even if improperly admitted, warrants reversal only if it likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict where a longshoreman re-entered a dark, completed hold and fell through an open hatch, holding that § 905(b) imposes a limited duty of reasonable care tied to foreseeability and work areas, and that the vessel could rely on the stevedore to control longshoremen’s movements and safety practices.


United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba, 683 F.2d 1022 (7th Cir. 1982)