Issue of Fact Regarding Vessel Owner’s Active Control Duty Precludes Summary Judgment

Issue of Fact Regarding Vessel Owner’s Active Control Duty Precludes Summary Judgment

By: Francis Waguespack

Aldana v. Maybelle Shipping, LLC, 13-553, 2014 WL 3661796 (E.D. La. July 22, 2014)Plaintiff Roque Aldana, an employee of Total Marine Services, Inc. (herein, Total Marine), was allegedly injured while performing repair work on the M/V SEA RAMBLER, a vessel operated by Maybelle Shipping, LLC (herein, Maybelle).After watertight tests on a vessel’s watertight compartments proved unsuccessful, Aldana and two other Total Marine employees decided to perform an air pressure test. Also present, was the captain of the SEA RAMBLER, an employee of defendant Maybelle Shipping, LLC.The air pressure test revealed air escaping from the center, stern hatch cover, prompting Aldana to tighten it. The captain of the vessel also assisted Aldana by pulling a pipe placed over the t-wrench handle. As the captain pulled the pipe, the hatch cover blew off and struck Aldana in the face. This caused Aldana to fall over the stern of the vessel.Aldana filed suit in state court, alleging damages under general maritime law and Section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. The Defendants removed the case, while the owners of the Sea Rambler concurrently filed a limitation action, which was consolidated with Aldana’s suit.Maybelle later filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it did not breach any of the third-party vessel owner duties as set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision, Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981).The Court analyzed two of the three Scindia duties: (1) the turnover duty of safe condition, which focuses on the condition of the vessel upon commencement of the stevedoring operations; and, (2) the duty to prevent injuries to longshoremen in areas remaining under the “active control” of the vessel. The third and final duty, the duty to intervene, was not at issue in this case.Regarding the vessel’s turnover duty, the Court found no question of material fact existed. The Court explained the SEA RAMBLER was turned over to Total Marine, at the Coast Guard’s request, for proper inspection and repair. Total Marine specialized in vessel repair, and the air pressure test was a common procedure for repairs. Total Marine was hired to perform this air pressure test, and any risks from the test were an inherent part of completing the task.However, the Court did find a question of material fact existed regarding the vessel’s active control duty. The Court focused on the fact that the captain of the SEA RAMBLER tried to help Aldana tighten the hatch cover with a pipe. The Court explained that when the captain used the pipe to pull on the hatch cover, he became an active participant in the repair and exerted some control over the job.The Court stated the issue of the case revolved around whether the captain was the proper person to use the pipe. No evidence in the record showed that Aldana or any Total Marine employee asked the captain to assist in the repair work. A Total Marine employee even testified that while there is no implicit danger in tightening a hatch cover under pressure, over tightening a hatch cover could result in safety issues. Further, the record showed the captain had never assisted in an air pressure test before and did not know how much torque the hatch cover could handle.Thus, the district court denied the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding it was possible a reasonable juror could determine the SEA RAMBLER’S captain was negligent in assisting the repairmen without proper instruction or training and that this could have caused Aldana’s injuries.