Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01206/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01206-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP MARABLE and GISELA

MARABLE,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

ORDER

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

BAE SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP

REPAIR,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

BACKGROUND

This is an action for personal injury and damages arising from an incident that

occurred on August 30, 2012 on the USS Pinckney, a public vessel owned by

Defendant United States of America, while it was undergoing repairs in the San Diego

Harbor. Plaintiff Phillip Marable, a ship repairman working on the USS Pinckney,

sustained injuries after slipping on a ladder on the vessel. 

On May 13, 2014, Plaintiffs Phillip Marable and Gisela Marable initiated this

action by filing a Complaint against Defendants United States of America (“United

States”) and BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair (“BAE Systems”). (ECF No. 1).

Phillip Marable asserted a negligence cause of action under general maritime law

against BAE Systems and a negligence cause of action pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b),

- 1 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), against

Defendant United States. Gisela Marable asserted a cause of action for loss of

consortium against both Defendants. (ECF No. 1). 

On July 14, 2014, Defendant United States filed an Answer and Cross-claim

against BAE Systems for contribution and indemnity. (ECF No. 3). 

On September 2, 2014, Defendant BAE Systems filed an Answer and Crossclaim against United States for contribution and indemnity. (ECF No. 6). 

 A bench trial took place on June 20-23 and 27, 2017. (ECF Nos. 85, 86, 89, 92,

101). 

FINDINGS OF FACT

The USS Pinckney (“the Vessel”) is an Arleigh-Burke class guided missile

destroyer of the United States Navy and public vessel owned by the United States. 

During a period between approximately mid-April and November 2012, the period of 

availability, the Vessel underwent repairs and maintenance while berthed at the 32nd

Street Naval Base in San Diego. BAE Systems was the prime shipyard contractor

during the period of availability responsible for the overall shipyard level maintenance. 

The Navy coordinated with BAE Systems through an intermediary, the Southwest

Regional Maintenance Center (“SWMRC”) to conduct repairs on the Vessel. SWRMC

is a combination of active duty and civilian contractors working on behalf of the United

States Navy. Ship’s Force consists of the active duty, enlisted, and commissioned

officers that serve full-time on the Pinckney. SWRMC, BAE Systems, and Ship’s

Force coordinated to perform the repairs on the Vessel. Safway Services, LLC

(“Safway”) was the scaffolding company that BAE Systems subcontracted to work on

the Vessel during the period of availability. 

As part of the repairs and maintenance to be performed on the Vessel, handrails

on a number of ladders on the Vessel were to be removed for powder-coating. The

Ship’s Force was responsible for removing and providing the handrails to SWRMC for

powder-coating. SWRMC would facilitate the powder-coating process and return the

- 2 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

handrails to Ship’s Force. Ship’s Force would reinstall the handrails on the Vessel. 

Lieutenant Christopher Brandt, the overall coordinator for the Ship’s Force during the

period of availability, testified that when Ship’s Force removes a handrail, Ship’s Force

generally would notify SWRMC and BAE Systems about the removed handrail and

inform them that a temporary handrail needed to be installed in its place. Brandt

testified that the expectation of Ship’s Force is that BAE Systems was responsible for

putting a temporary handrail in place or taping off the ladder. BAE Systems was

expected to conduct safety walk-throughs during the period of availability to identify

and correct safety hazards. BAE Systems failed to conduct a number of safety walkthroughs in August of 2012 prior to the date Phillip Marable sustained his injuries. 

Darold Ellington, a gas-free safety tech in BAE System’s employment, conducted a

safety walk-through on August 22, 2012 and identified the incident ladder as missing

a handrail but did not take any corrective action. 

As part of its contractual obligations to the United States, BAE Systems must

comply with NAVSEA Standard Item 009-07. NAVSEA Standard Item 009-07 states

in part: 

3.8 Accomplish a fire prevention and housekeeping inspection on a daily basis whenever work is in progress. The inspection shall be made jointly with the SUPERVISOR and the Commanding Officer’s designated representative. 3.8.1 Submit one legible copy, in electronic media, of a written report of the discrepancies and corrective actions, using Attachment A, to the SUPERVISOR and the Commanding Officer’s designated

representative within 4 hours after completion of the inspection. 

(Plaintiff Exhibit 35, NAVSEA Standard 009-07, Section 3.8). 

Phillip Marable (“Marable”) was employed by Safway as a scaffolding

superintendent on the date of the incident. As of August 2012, Marable had been in the

scaffolding trade for approximately thirty (30) years since his high school graduation. 

Over the span of thirty years, Marable worked as a general laborer, foreman, supervisor,

estimator, and superintendent. Marable owned a scaffolding business for a period of

time. Marable had spent a significant time performing scaffolding work in shipyards

on naval and commercial vessels prior to August 2012. 

- 3 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On August 30, 2012, Marable was working on the Vessel in the course of his

employment for Safway. Marable was injured when he slipped walking down the

inclined ladder on the port side quarter deck on the 02 level of the Vessel. At the time

of the incident, the ladder was missing its inboard handrail. The handrail had been

removed by Ship’s Force for the powder-coating process. The outboard handrail on the

incident ladder remained in place. The incident ladder did not have any caution tape

or temporary railing on the inboard side. 

On the day of the incident, Marable used the incident ladder to access his work

area. There were alternative routes by which Marable could access the work area. 

Marable testified that he observed that the ladder was missing a handrail but felt that

he could safely climb the ladder. During his testimony, Marable was asked, “And at

that time [prior to using the ladder], did you feel like you could safely get up the

ladder?” Marable responded, “Yes, I did.” (Marable TT, 188: 7-20). Marable testified

that he does not recall exactly how he fell, but stated that his right foot slipped as he

was walking down the stairs. Marable testified that he fell to the right and the inboard

handrail was not there for him to grab. Marable testified that he injured his left knee

in the fall. Marable testified that following his fall, he used the incident ladder again

and still felt that the ladder was safe. On the same day, Marable reported the injury to

Jonas Raymond Montalvo, a Safety Technician for BAE Systems at the time of the

incident. Montalvo prepared an incident report which stated, “On August 30, 2012, at

approximately 0815, Safway Scaffold employee slipped on a moist stairway descending

from the 02 LVL portside. In an attempt not to fall, the employee reached out to grab

the hand rail but it was missing and caught himself on the bulkhead preventing a fall to

the 01 LVL. Initial reported as a near miss to BAE Systems Safety on August 30,

2012.” (Plaintiff Exhibit 17). The incident report further stated that the cause of the

incident was “moisture on stairway & missing handrail” and that Marable sustained an

injury to his knee. (Plaintiff Exhibit 17). Montalvo testified that he obtained the

information for his report from Marable, from a document from Safway, or from

- 4 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

visually observing that the handrail was missing. Marable went to urgent care to have

his knee examined on the day of the incident. 

In December 2012, Marable underwent a total left knee replacement surgery. 

Around two or three months after the knee replacement surgery, Marable returned to

work on light duty. In October 2013, Marable underwent a revision surgery of his left

knee replacement. Marable testified that during the time he was going through physical

therapy after the second knee surgery, he began to suffer pain in his lower back and

gait disturbance. Marable testified that he was referred to a spine specialist, Dr. Paul

Kim. Marable began receiving treatment from Dr. Kenneth Romero, a doctor

specializing in pain medicine, beginning in June 2014. Marable underwent a lumbar

fusion surgery in November 2015. Marable underwent a second lumbar fusion surgery

on January 13, 2017. Marable has not been medically cleared to return to work since

the second surgery on his knee in October 2013. Marable and his wife, Gisela Marable,

testified that although Marable’s condition is improving, he remains in pain and the

injuries have negatively impacted their previously active lifestyle and their relationship.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

I. Negligence Against the United States Under the Longshore and Harbor

Workers’ Compensation Act 

This is an admiralty and maritime matter within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 781-790,

which incorporates the consistent provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.

§§ 30901, et seq., provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity

from suit for certain maritime claims involving a public vessel, such as the USS

Pinckney. Under the Public Vessels Act, an injured party has no greater claim against

the United States than one would have against a private person under similar

circumstances. 46 U.S.C. § 30903; Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States, 324 U.S.

215, 228 (1945). Marable has asserted a cause of action against the United States for

negligence pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33

- 5 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S.C. § 905(b). The parties have stipulated that liability against the United States shall

be determined exclusively under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). (ECF No. 83 at 26).

Section 905(b) of the LHWCA preserves a longshoreman’s right to recover from

a shipowner under a negligence cause of action. See 33 U.S.C. § 905(b); Scindia Steam

Nav. Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156, 165 (1981); Murray v. Southern Route

Maritime SA, 870 F.3d 915, 918-19 (9th Cir. 2017). The duty of care delineated in 

Scindia as to longshoremen applies equally to repairmen. Cook v. Exxon Shipping Co.,

762 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1985), amended on reh’g, 773 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir. 1985). 

In Scindia Steam Navigation Company, the Supreme Court established the duty of care

applicable to an action under § 905(b). Scindia Steam, 451 U.S. at 166-67. The

Supreme Court stated: 

[T]he vessel owes to the stevedore and his longshoremen

employees the duty of exercising due care “under the

circumstances.” This duty extends at least to exercising

ordinary care under the circumstances to have the ship and its equipment in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedore will be able by the exercise of reasonable care to

carry on its cargo operations with reasonable safety to

persons and property, and to warning the stevedore of any

hazards on the ship or with respect to its equipment that are known to the vessel or should be known to it in the exercise

of reasonable care, that would likely be encountered by the stevedore in the course of his cargo operations and that are

not known by the stevedore and would not be obvious to or

anticipated by him if reasonably competent in the

performance of his work . . . .The shipowner thus has a duty with respect to the condition of the ship’s gear, equipment,

tools, and work space to be used in the stevedoring

operations; and if he fails at least to warn the stevedore of

hidden danger which would have been known to him in the

exercise of reasonable care, he has breached his duty and is

liable if his negligence causes injury to a longshoreman. . . . It is also accepted that the vessel may be liable if it actively involves itself in the cargo operations and negligently injures a longshoreman or if it fails to exercise due care to avoid

exposing longshoremen to harm from hazards they may

encounter in areas, or from equipment, under the active

control of the vessel during the stevedoring operation.

Id. In cases following Scindia Steam, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals identified

“five distinct aspects of that duty”: (1) the turnover duty of safe condition; (2) the

turnover duty to warn; (3) the active involvement duty; (4) the active control duty; and

- 6 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(5) the intervention duty. Bjaranson v. Botelho Shipping Corp., Manila, 873 F.2d 1204,

1207 (9th Cir. 1989). The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit later characterized

Scindia as “outlin[ing] three general duties shipowners owe to longshoremen” and

construed the active involvement and active control duty together. Howlett v. Birkdale

Shipping Co., S.A., 512 U.S. 92, 98 (1994); Christensen v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 279

F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Supreme Court has limited the duties that a vessel

owner owes to the stevedores working for him or her: the turnover duty, the active

control duty, and the intervention duty. . . .). 

In this case, Plaintiffs claimed that the active involvement duty is applicable and

that Defendant United States violated its duty of reasonable care under the

circumstances by removing the incident ladder’s inboard handrails. (ECF No. 119 at

21). The United States contends that all aspects of the vessel owner’s duty of

reasonable care under the circumstances must be viewed in the context of an expert and

experienced ship repair person. The United States further asserts that the missing

handrail was not a breach of the active control duty regardless of whether the standard

of care is viewed in light of a ship repair person or an expert and experienced ship

repair person.1

The Court finds that the active involvement/control duty is applicable to this case

because the United States was responsible for the removal of the inboard handrail on

the incident ladder. The United States owed to Marable a duty of reasonable care under

the circumstances with respect to the ladder. See Howlett, 512 U.S. at 98 (“The second

duty, applicable once stevedoring operations have begun, provides that a shipowner

must exercise reasonable care to prevent injuries to longshoremen in areas that remain

under the ‘active control of the vessel.’”). “The active control duty requires the vessel

owner to act reasonably if it actively participates in the cargo operations, and to avoid

exposing the stevedores to harm from hazards they may encounter in areas . . . under

1

 Defendant United States and Plaintiffs filed briefs regarding the applicable standard of care in the negligence action against the United States prior to the trial. (ECF Nos. 65, 68, 70).

- 7 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the active control of the ship.” Christensen, 279 F.3d at 812; Howlett, 512 U.S. at 98. 

The Court concludes that the duty of reasonable care under the circumstances must be

viewed in the context of an “expert and experienced” ship repair person. See, e.g.,

Scindia Steam, 451 U.S. at 166-67 (“This duty extends at least to exercising ordinary

care under the circumstances to have the ship and its equipment in such condition that

an expert and experienced stevedore will be able by the exercise of reasonable care to

carry on its cargo operations with reasonable safety to persons and property”);

Bjaranson, 873 F.2d at 1208 (discussing the turnover duty and stating “the vessel must

exercise ordinary care in light of the fact that the operation will be conducted by an

‘expert and experienced’ stevedore”); Ludwig v. Pan Ocean Shipping Co., Ltd., 941

F.2d 849, 852 (9th Cir. 1991) (discussing the turnover duty and stating “A

longshoreman is an expert who is required to be ‘mindful’ of hazards – not forgetful of

them . . . . It is for this reason that the question whether an average reasonable person

would be excused from forgetting about a hazard aboard ship is irrelevant when the

issue is whether a longshoreman should be excused from forgetting such a hazard.”). 

At the time of Marable’s alleged injury, the inboard handrail had been removed

from the incident ladder for powder-coating. However, the outboard handrail on the

incident ladder remained in place. Marable testified that he recognized that the incident

ladder was missing one of its two handrails prior to using it. During his testimony,

Marable was asked, “And at that time [prior to using the ladder], did you feel like you

could safely get up the ladder?” Marable responded, “Yes, I did.” (Marable TT, 188:

7-20). Marable testified that as superintendent he had the authority and responsibility

to stop work if he identified an unsafe condition. Marable testified that he climbed the

incident ladder both before and after his slip although he was aware of available

alternate routes by which he could reach his work area. Marable testified that even after

the slip, he “knew [the ladder] was safe.” (Marable TT 238:19, 193-194). Further,

Marable had thirty years of experience doing scaffolding work and had spent significant

time working on vessels such as the USS Pinckney.

- 8 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The United States provided testimony by expert witness James Dolan, a marine

consultant. Dolan testified that “anybody working in our industry transiting walkways

and watertight doors and anything else” should be able to safely “go up and down” the

incident ladder as well as “determine whether it is safe to go up and down the ladder.” 

(Dolan TT 503 at 14-18). Dolan testified that “any experienced ship person or shipyard

or repair person should have been able to go down that ladder or up that ladder safely.” 

(Dolan TT, 504:1-5). Dolan testified that it is common for experienced ship repairman

to go up and down a ladder using one hand on a railing and that a ladder with one

handrail removed would not be a safety hazard for the experienced ship repair person,

like Marable.2

 The Court finds this expert testimony to be credible and persuasive. 

The Court finds that the incident ladder with the missing inboard handrail did not

create an unreasonably hazardous condition for an expert and experienced ship repair

person such as Marable. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the

evidence that Defendant United States breached its duty of reasonable care under the

circumstances. 

II. Negligence Against BAE Under General Maritime Law 

The parties have stipulated that liability against Defendant BAE is governed

under general maritime law of negligence. (ECF No. 83 at 26-27). Work performed

aboard a ship docked at a shipyard on navigable waters is within the jurisdiction of

federal maritime law under 29 U.S.C. § 1331. See Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 367

(1990). General maritime law recognizes the tort of negligence. Norfolk Shipbuilding

& Drydockk Corp. v. Garris, 532 U.S. 811, 820 (2001). “To recover for negligence,

a plaintiff must establish: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” 

Samuels v. Holland American Line-USA, Inc., 656 F.3d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 2011). The

duty owed to a ship repairman in a general maritime action for negligence is the

2

 Plaintiffs provided expert testimony by Thomas Dyer who testified that the incident ladder with the missing inboard handrail was “hazardous.” Dyer testified, “[T]here is two functions of the railings. One of them is one hand for yourself, but the other one is to keep from you falling off the side of the ladder if something goes wrong.” (Dyer TT, 275:21-277:10).

- 9 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ordinary negligence duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. Peters v. Titan

Nav. Co., 857 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Weyerhauser Co. v. Atropos Island,

777 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding the standard of “reasonable care under the

circumstances” consistent with the standard “human skill and precaution, and a proper

display of nautical skill.”). “In maritime law, general principles of negligence law

guide the federal courts.” Peters, 857 F.2d at 1345 n.1. 

Plaintiffs contend that under general maritime law, BAE Systems owed to

Marable a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. Plaintiffs contend that BAE

Systems had a contractual duty of care under NAVSEA Standard 009-07 to perform

daily safety walk-throughs every Monday through Friday during the availability period

and to identify and remedy safety hazards. (ECF No. 119 at 25). Plaintiffs contend that

BAE Systems breached its duty to put caution tape around the ladder to prevent expert

and experienced workers from accessing the ladder. Id. at 26. Plaintiffs contend that

BAE Systems failed to uphold its duty to correct the hazardous condition of the incident

ladder after identifying that it was missing a handrail. Id. 

BAE Systems contends that the negligence claim against BAE Systems is

governed by general maritime law. BAE Systems contends that “the Scindia duties

owed by a vessel owner to a longshoreman working on a vessel are instructive with

respect to the duties owed by a ship repair contractor like BAE to a ship repair worker

like Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 118 at 11-12). BAE Systems contends that it did not breach

its duty of care because the ladder with the missing handrail did not constitute an

unreasonably dangerous hazard. Id. at 12-13. Further, BAE Systems contends that it

did not have a duty to warn of or remedy the condition of the ladder because the missing

inboard handrail constitutes an “open and obvious hazard.” Id. at 14-15. BAE Systems

contends that it does not owe Marable any contractual duty under NAVSEA Standard

009-07 because (1) Plaintiffs failed to plead a breach of contract cause of action against

BAE or to allege that they were third-party beneficiaries under the contract between

BAE and the U.S. Navy; (2) Plaintiffs did not raise the issue of breach of contractual

- 10 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

duty in the pretrial order or pretrial brief; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate at trial

that they were parties to the contract between BAE and the Navy or that they were

intended third-party beneficiaries of the government contract. (ECF No. 124 at 16-17).

The Court concludes that BAE Systems did not owe Marable a contractual duty

to identify and remedy the condition of the incident ladder with the missing inboard

handrail under NAVSEA Standard 009-07. Plaintiffs cite section 3.8 of the NAVSEA

Standard 009-07 as the basis of this contractual duty. This section states, 

3.8 Accomplish a fire prevention and housekeeping inspection on a daily

basis whenever work is in progress. The inspection shall be made jointly

with the SUPERVISOR and the Commanding Officer’s designated representative. 3.8.1 Submit one legible copy, in electronic media, of a written

report of the discrepancies and corrective actions, using Attachment A, to the SUPERVISOR and the Commanding Officer’s designated

representative within 4 hours after completion of the inspection. 

(Plaintiff Exhibit 35 at 9). Attachment A included within NAVSEA Standard 009-07 

is the discrepancy and corrective action log listed in Section 3.8.1 and lists Type Codes

for use in completing the log, including “12-Unguarded/Edges/Holes/Openings/Fall

Protection.” (Plaintiff Exhibit 35 at 11-12). 

Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden to establish a right to bring a claim

premised on a provision in NAVSEA Standard 009-07. NAVSEA Standard 009-07 is

incorporated into a contract between BAE Systems and the United States, through

SWRMC. “[O]nly a party to a contract or an intended third-party beneficiary may sue

to enforce the terms of a contract or obtain an appropriate remedy for breach.”

GECCMC 2005-C1 Plummer St. Office Ltd. Partnership v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

Nat’l Assoc., 671 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 2012). “This is ‘a comparatively difficult

task’: a party that benefits from a government contract is presumed to be an incidental

beneficiary, and that presumption may not be overcome without showing ‘a clear intent

to the contrary.’” Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 824 F.3d 1156, 1160

(9th Cir. 2016) (citing Cty. of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 588 F.3d 1237, 1244 (9th

Cir. 2009)). “[A] putative third-party beneficiary must demonstrate an intent on the part

of the contracting parties to ‘grant [it] enforceable rights.’” Id. (citing Orff v. United

- 11 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004)). Plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence

to establish that Marable is a party to or an intended third-party beneficiary to the

contract incorporating the responsibilities set forth in NAVSEA Standard 009-07.

The Court concludes that BAE Systems owed to Marable “the ordinary

negligence duty of reasonable care under the circumstances.” Peters, 857 F.2d at 1344 

(holding that the duty owed to a ship repairman in a general maritime action for

negligence is the ordinary negligence duty of reasonable care under the circumstances).3

On the day of the incident, the inboard handrail on the incident ladder had been

removed. The outboard handrail on the incident ladder remained in place. Marable

testified that he recognized that the incident ladder was missing one of its two handrails

prior to using it and felt that it was safe. During his testimony, Marable was asked,

“And at that time [prior to using the ladder], did you feel like you could safely get up

the ladder?” Marable responded, “Yes, I did.” (Marable TT, 188: 7-20). Marable had

thirty years of experience doing scaffolding work and had spent significant time

working on vessels such as the USS Pinckney. Marable testified that as superintendent

he had the authority and responsibility to stop work if he identified an unsafe condition. 

Marable climbed the incident ladder both before and after his slip although he was

aware of available alternate routes by which he could reach his work area. Marable

testified that even after the slip, he “knew [the ladder] was safe.” (Marable TT 238:19,

193-194). Further, expert witness James Dolan testified that it is common for

experienced ship repairman to go up and down a ladder using one hand on a railing and

that a ladder with one handrail removed would not be a safety hazard for the

experienced ship repair person like Marable. The Court concludes that the incident

ladder with an outboard handrail in place did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous

condition to an experienced ship repair person. 

3

 Defendant BAE and Plaintiffs filed briefs regarding the applicable standard of care in the negligence action against the BAE prior to the trial. (ECF Nos. 64, 67, 69). Defendant BAE’s “Motion Regarding the Appropriate Standard of Care” is granted in that this Order determines that BAE Systems owed a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to Marable. (ECF No. 64). 

- 12 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that “the limits of negligence liability in

section 905 cases against a Vessel [are] instructive on the limits of negligence liability

in suits against other defendants.” Peters, 857 F.2d 1342, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988). In

Peters, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered a similar negligence action by a

ship repairman against a non-vessel defendant under general maritime law after the

repairman suffered injuries while conducting repair work. Id. at 1343-45. The Court

of Appeals applied § 905(b) case law that held that defendants were not liable where a

plaintiff-ship repair person was injured by the condition he was hired to repair. Id. at

1345. In various negligence cases under the LHWCA, courts have held that vessel

owners do not have a duty to warn of open and obvious conditions. See Howlett, 512

U.S. at 99-100 (“[T]he duty [to warn] attaches only to latent hazards, defined in this

context as hazards that would be neither obvious to nor anticipated by a competent

stevedore in the ordinary course of cargo operations.”); Ludwig, 941 F.2d at 852 (“A

shipowner may rely on the expertise of longshoremen and leave unremedied conditions

that would otherwise be considered dangerous to less skilled persons.”). In this case,

Marable testified that he was aware of the missing inboard handrail on the incident

ladder prior to using the ladder. The Court concludes that the missing inboard handrail

on the incident ladder constituted an open and obvious condition. In light of Peters and

the section 905(b) cases limiting liability for open and obvious conditions, the Court

concludes that BAE did not have a duty to warn or remedy due to the open and obvious

nature of the missing inboard handrail on the incident ladder. 

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs did not prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that the missing inboard handrail on the incident ladder created an

unreasonably dangerous condition to an experienced ship repair person. The Court

concludes that Defendant BAE Systems did not have any duty to warn Marable of the

missing inboard handrail on the incident ladder or remedy the condition of the incident

ladder. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the

evidence that Defendant BAE Systems breached its duty of reasonable care under the

- 13 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

circumstances. 

III. Loss of Consortium

Because the Court concludes that Defendants United States and BAE Systems are

not liable to Plaintiffs for any act of negligence in relation to injuries sustained by

Phillip Marable, Plaintiff Gisela Marable’s cause of action for loss of consortium is

dismissed. See Hahn v. Mirda, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527, 531 (Ct. App. 2007) (“A cause of

action for loss of consortium is, by its nature, dependent on the existence of a cause of

action for tortious injury to a spouse. . . . [I]t stands or falls based on whether the spouse

of the party alleging loss of consortium has suffered an actionable tortious injury.”). 

Judgment shall be entered in favor of the United States and BAE Systems as to

Plaintiffs’ third cause of action. 

IV. Cross-Claims by BAE Systems and United States 

BAE Systems brings cross-claims for contribution and indemnity against the

United States. (ECF No. 6 at 9-11). The United States also brings cross-claims for

contribution and indemnity against BAE Systems. (ECF No. 3 at 12-15). These claims

were predicated on the Court finding any liability on the part of either Defendant on the

negligence causes of action. The Court has not found that either Defendant was

negligent with respect to any duty owed to Phillip Marable under general maritime law

or the LHWCA. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the United States’ cross-claims for

contribution and indemnity and Defendant BAE System’s cross-claims for contribution

and indemnity. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they

are entitled to prevail on the three causes of action alleged in the Complaint. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor

of Defendants BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc. and United States and against

Plaintiffs Phillip Marable and Gisela Marable as to all causes of action in the

Complaint. 

- 14 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the cross-claims for contribution and indemnity

by the United States and BAE Systems are dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Apply the Appropriate Standard

of Care filed by Defendant BAE Systems is granted. (ECF No. 64). 

DATED: December 21, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 15 - 14cv1206-WQH-KSC

Case 3:14-cv-01206-WQH-KSC Document 125 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 15