Crace v. Huntington Ingalls: Down the Hatch
Crace v. Huntington Ingalls: Down the Hatch
By: Patrick Gabb
Crace v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., No. 16-30205, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18834; 2016 WL 6110040 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2016).Huntington Ingalls, Inc. contracted to build a ship for the United States Navy. William Paul Crace, a worker for a subcontractor, was responsible for inspecting the ship prior to it being commissioned and delivered to the Navy. As Crace was attempting to inspect a lower compartment of the ship, he fell from a ladder and was injured.Crace brought claims for negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA), general maritime law, and state law. He alleged that Huntington Ingalls defectively designed, constructed, and installed the ladder. Crace further alleged that Huntington Ingalls negligently installed a locked safety chain that restricted access to the hatch and ladder.The district court held that (1) it lacked jurisdiction over Crace’s federal maritime claims because the ship was still under construction, (2) government contractor immunity shielded Huntington Ingalls from Crace’s state law claim, and (3) Crace’s state law claim for negligent placement of the safety chain failed because the chain was an open and obvious condition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.Crace’s first argument was that the ship on which he was injured was a vessel because it was sufficiently complete at the time of the accident. In disagreement, the Fifth Circuit held that a ship being outfitted and inspected is a non-vessel because it is incomplete and not ready for duty upon the sea. Next, Crace argued that the district court erred in holding that the government contractor immunity shielded Huntington Ingalls from liability for Crace’s state law negligence claim. The Fifth Circuit found that the district court correctly applied the government contractor immunity defense because Huntington Ingalls prepared the design and installation of the ladder with Navy parameters, and the Navy ultimately approved the drawings and placement of the ladder. Finally, Crace argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his negligence claim as to the safety chain. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly found that Huntington Ingalls had no duty to protect against this open and obvious risk because the safety chain was in place so that personnel would not fall through the open hatch.In conclusion, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Huntington Ingalls.
