NEGLIGENCE IN THE NIGHT
Purvis v. Maersk Line A/S, No. 19-12041, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS, 2020 WL 4184 (11th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020).
By: Dominic A. Wilson
TheUnited States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, ruled in favor of thedefendant, Maersk Line A/S, or “Maersk.” The appellate court upheld thedistrict court’s finding that the defendant was not negligent in the injuriessustained from a hatch door by the plaintiff, Albert Purvis, a longshoreman whoworked on a lasher bridge in the Port of Savannah.[1]
OnDecember 20th, 2015, Purvis worked a night shift as a lasher. His dutiesentailed unloading the M/V ANNA MAERSK, which the defendant owned and operated.On the evening of the incident, Purvis was designated to work on the lasherbridge. To access this bridge, he must climb up a ladder and enter through ahatch door. Purvis and his coworkers were reportedly the first to enter theship, and Purvis was the first to engage with the ladder. This was not hisfirst time on this vessel. He testified that he was on theANNA MAERSK, at least ten times before the incident.[2] Whenhe headed to the latch bridge, initially, he climbed the ladder unharmed. Thisis because the hatch was already in an upright, open position. After traversingup, Purvis worked on the bridge, which sat on the same level as the hatch door.The hatch door has a latch that indicates whether the door is propped open.However, Purvis, who worked in the evening hours, could not readily see thelatch. Purvis needed a tool from his previous location; so, he climbed down theladder, which meant he once again went through the hatch door. Upon receivingthe tool, he climbed back up the ladder. As soon as he reached the top, thehatch door, which once sat upright, fell on his head. He fell from the ladderand became unconscious. Purvis suffered spinal cord compression and underwentsurgery. Purvis was not able to work for nearly a year. He sought compensationfor his physical pain and suffering, loss of wages and earnings, and medicalexpenses under the Longshoremen's Act.[3]
Thecourt started their analysis by citing the rule that vessel owners owestevedores and longshore employees a duty of care.[4] But, the shipowner may relyon the stevedore to remove any unreasonable harms that the longshoreman mayoccur. There are no requirements in supervising the stevedore, and furthermore,the shipowner has no duty to check the cargo operation area designated to thestevedore.[5] But,the shipowner does owe a stevedore three main duties: 1) active control duty,2) duty to intervene, and 3) turnover duty, the issue related to the presentcase.[6]Turnover duty requires the shipowner to use reasonable care when “turning over”the vessel to the stevedore.[7] Thecondition of the vessel must be at a level where an experienced and prudentstevedore, who is mindful of associated harmful hazards, is reasonably aware ofany such harms that may arise from cargo operations.[8] Furthermore, the shipownerhas the duty to warn the stevedore of harms related to the ship or equipment.These harms are known or should have been known to the shipowner and would beunobvious nor anticipated by a reasonably competent stevedore.[9] Thisrule also applies to any related equipment.[10]
Purvisfirst argued that the hatch cover and latch were defective. Second, he arguedthat the Maersk employees were the only individuals to open the cover of thehatch. Therefore, there was a failure of reasonable action by not latching itor notifying him. The court found the plaintiff’s arguments insufficient.Regarding his first theory, the court reasoned that evidence of the videocaptured by Purvis’s attorney, which displayed that tampering with the hatch causedit to fall on the third attempt, did not show that the hatch cover nor latchwere defective at the time of injury. This was mostly because of a lack oftestimony that supported and verified the video. Additionally, the plaintiff’sinjuries occurred on December 30th, 2015, and the video taken by his attorneywas almost three years later, on June 5th, 2018. Purvis himself, could nottestify to the hatch’s condition in 2015. He also admitted that he did notvisually inspect the hatch cover and latch the evening of the incident. Lastly,there were no reported issues with the hatch door in safety reports and routineinspections.
Regarding the second argument, the court reasoned that even if the hatch door was manipulated, it did not remove Purvis from avoiding injury by visual inspection of the hatch door. The fact that it was dark did not change the analysis because he was still on the same level as the hatch door. If he had acted with reasonable care, the unlatched hatch cover would have been apparent to him. Furthermore, Purvis is an experienced longshoreman, who gave a safety briefing the evening of the incident. Therefore, it was within his reasonable control to know that the hatch door would not open properly. Thus, the court upheld the district court’s finding and ruled in favor of the vessel owner.
[1] Purvis v. Maersk Line A/S, No. 19-12041, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 37, at *1 (11th Cir. Jan.3rd. 2020).
[2] Id. at*2.
[3] Id. at*4.
[4] Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 167, 101 S. Ct. 1614, 68 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1981)
[5] Id. at170, 172.
[6] Purvis, 2020US. App. LEXIS 37, at *5.
[7] Scindia, 452 U.S. at172.
[8] Purvis, 2020US. App. LEXIS 37 at *5.
[9] Id.at *6.
[10] Id.at *5.
