[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11967

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00239-WTM-GRS

TYRONE T. MILLER, 

SHEILA MILLER,

 Plaintiffs - Third Party Defendants - Appellants,

versus

NAVALMAR (UK) LTD., 

 Defendant - Third Party Defendant - Appellee,

GRIEG STAR SHIPPING, AS, 

 Defendant - Appellee,

GRIEG STAR AS, et al.,

 Defendants,

HOMEPORT INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Third Party Plaintiff - Third Party Defendant.

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 1 of 15 
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(April 13, 2017)

Before MARCUS, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case arises from a negligence action brought by longshoreman Tyrone 

T. Miller under Section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ 

Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950, after he fell while loading 

cargo into the M/V CARRARA CASTLE.

1

 The District Court granted summary 

judgment in favor of the owner of the CARRARA CASTLE, Navalmar (UK) Ltd. 

(Navalmar), and the vessel’s charterer Grieg Star Shipping II AS (Grieg)

(collectively, the Defendants). Miller appeals from that ruling asserting Grieg’s 

written cargo safety and storage procedures constituted active control over the 

vessel requiring Grieg to exercise reasonable care toward longshoremen engaged 

in the loading operation. Miller also contends that both Grieg and Navalmar knew 

a fall hazard existed on the vessel and were required to intervene and remedy the 

dangerous condition when it became apparent that SSA/Cooper Stevedoring 

 1

Miller’s wife, Sheila Miller, also brought a loss of consortium claim based on the 

injuries suffered by her husband. Her claim is entirely derivative of Miller’s negligence action 

brought under § 905(b), and so we need not address it further. 

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 2 of 15 
3

Company (SSA), the stevedoring firm charged with loading the CARRARA 

CASTLE, failed to do so. After review, 2 we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

On September 28, 2011, Tyrone Miller, a member of the International 

Longshoreman’s Association since 2006, was employed by SSA to work a shift 

loading the CARRARA CASTLE at the Georgia Ports Authority Ocean Terminal 

in Savannah, Georgia. The CARRARA CASTLE was owned by Navalmar and on 

time charter to Grieg. Pursuant to the time charter agreement, Grieg was allowed 

to use the vessel’s cargo spaces for loading cargo and transporting that cargo 

overseas.3

 Grieg employed SSA and other stevedoring companies to handle the 

actual cargo loading and unloading process at various ports across the globe. 

Grieg provided SSA with information regarding cargo specifications along with

written guidelines detailing the proper methods for storing and securing particular 

types of cargo. These procedures provided that they should not be changed 

 2 “This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo applying the 

same legal standards used by the district court.” Galvez v. Bruce, 552 F.3d 1238, 1241 (11th Cir. 

2008). “Summary judgment is appropriate where ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Wooden v. Bd. of 

Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 247 F.3d 1262, 1271 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c)). 

3 Under a typical time charter arrangement “the vessel owner commonly retains 

possession and control of the vessel, provides the crew and fully equips and maintains the 

vessel.” Thomas J. Schoenbaum, 2 ADMIRALTY & MARITIME LAW § 11-5 (5th ed. 2011).

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 3 of 15 
4

without consultation with Grieg’s port captain, in this instance, Steve Snell, who 

was present during the loading process. There is no evidence in the record 

suggesting Snell ever sought to enforce the loading procedures or otherwise 

interfere in SSA’s loading operations. 

On the day of Miller’s accident, the CARRARA CASTLE had arrived in 

Savannah to pick up a shipment of Kraft Liner Board (KLB). KLB is essentially 

cardboard tightly wound into a very large roll standing approximately eight feet 

high and weighing roughly 2,000 pounds. SSA loaded these rolls into the hold of 

the CARRARA CASTLE using what is commonly referred to as the chime 

method.4

 This method involves using a crane to stack the KLB rolls upright in 

interlocking rows. The initial row is placed flush against either the port or 

starboard bulkhead of the vessel, and each new roll is slotted into the gap or 

“chime” between the two rolls in the preceding row. Chiming is preferred over 

horizontally stowing the KLB rolls because the weight of the uppermost rolls 

would crush the open core of the supporting rows on the bottom of the hold

rendering them unusable. However, use of the chime method does result in the 

creation of gaps between the round edges of the rolls and the straight sides and 

corners of the cargo hold. 

 

4 Grieg’s written procedures indicated that KLB rolls are to be loaded using the chime 

method.

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 4 of 15 
5

When Miller arrived to begin his evening shift, the KLB rolls had already 

been stacked in four tiers standing approximately thirty-two feet high. Miller was 

instructed by his SSA supervisors to begin preparing the hold for tiers of a 

different commodity, wood pulp bales, by deploying plywood boards over the 

various void spots in the stacks of KLB rolls. After “a momentary lapse in 

concentration,” Miller stepped on a plywood board he had just placed over one of 

the large corner gaps. The board gave way and Miller fell thirty-two feet to the 

floor of the hold suffering significant injuries. The record does not indicate that 

the plywood board itself was defective, and Miller offered no testimony to that 

effect. The record is clear that no fall protections were placed in the corner gaps 

before Miller began covering them with plywood. 

B. Procedural History

Miller originally filed his negligence suit against Navalmar on September 

30, 2013 in the State Court of Chatham County, Georgia. Navalmar removed the 

action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on 

November 5, 2015. Following removal, Miller filed several amended complaints 

articulating new negligence theories, and, on April 29, 2014, named Grieg as a 

defendant in the action. After extensive discovery, Grieg and Navalmar filed 

independent motions for summary judgment on May 27, 2015. The Defendants

primarily argued that under § 905(b) of the LHWCA neither Navalmar nor Grieg 

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 5 of 15 
6

owed a duty of reasonable care toward Miller. The district court agreed and

granted the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. This appeal followed. 

II. DISCUSSION

As originally written, the LHWCA made shipowners strictly liable for 

injuries suffered by longshoremen due to a vessel’s unseaworthiness as proven by

the existence of an unsafe, injury-causing condition on the vessel. See Scindia 

Steam Nav. Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156, 164–65 (1981). But in 1972,

Congress radically altered this scheme by, among other things, adding a statutory 

cause of action for negligence against the shipowner, § 905(b), to the LHWCA and

abolishing a longshoreman’s right to recover in strict liability for injuries suffered 

due to unseaworthiness. Id. at 165. Ordinary negligence principles govern 

statutory claims brought under § 905(b) and the vessel owes the stevedore and her 

longshoremen employees the duty of reasonable care “under the circumstances.” 

Id. at 166–67 (quoting Marine Terminals v. Burnside Shipping Co., 394 U.S. 404, 

415 (1969)). 

But, the shipowner is entitled to rely on the stevedore “to avoid exposing the 

longshoremen to unreasonable hazards,” and may otherwise expect the stevedore 

to “perform his task properly without supervision.” Id. at 170. “[A]bsent contract 

provision, positive law, or custom to the contrary . . . the shipowner has no general 

duty by way of supervision or inspection to exercise reasonable care to discover 

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 6 of 15 
7

dangerous conditions that develop within the confines of the cargo operations that 

are assigned to the stevedore.” Id. at 172. However, shipowners do owe three 

distinct duties, known as Scindia duties after the case establishing them, during 

cargo operations. These duties are (1) the turnover duty, (2) the active control 

duty, and (3) the duty to intervene. See Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., 512 U.S. 

92, 98 (1994) (describing the three primary duties created by the Supreme Court in 

Scindia). On appeal, Miller only alleges breach of the active control duty and the 

duty to intervene, having expressly abandoned his turnover duty claims. 5

A. Active Control Duty

A time charterer violates the active control duty under Scindia if it “actively 

involves itself in the cargo operations and negligently injures a longshoreman.” 

Scindia, 451 U.S. at 167. Here, Miller primarily argues Grieg’s provision of a 

detailed loading procedure to the stevedore, SSA, and the presence of a port

captain aboard the CARRARA CASTLE during the loading process constituted 

active involvement in the cargo operation and created a duty of reasonable care 

toward Miller and the other longshoremen.6

 He contends Grieg subsequently 

 5 Although the parties have noted some ambiguity in the LHWCA’s treatment of time 

charterers as compared with shipowners, the District Court assumed that Grieg owed the same 

duties under the LHWCA as the shipowner, Navalmar. On appeal, the parties do not take issue 

with that assumption, so we will also assume, without deciding, that Grieg and Navalmar owed

identical duties under § 905(b). 

6 The record does not contain any evidence indicating the port captain actually took steps 

to enforce the written loading procedures provided by Grieg. 

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 7 of 15 
8

breached this duty by not providing adequate fall protection to guard against the 

deep corner voids necessarily created by the KLB storage method required under 

the loading procedure. Because we find neither Grieg’s storage plan nor the 

supervisory presence of a port captain during loading constitute active control 

sufficient to create a Scindia duty, we need not reach the question of breach. 

While it is true that Scindia itself does not define active involvement in 

cargo operations, it makes clear that once control over the vessel is relinquished 

“primary responsibility for the safety of the longshoremen lies with the stevedore.” 

Lampkin v. Liber. Athene Transp. Co., 823 F.2d 1497, 1501 (11th Cir. 2014); see 

also Scindia, 451 U.S. at 170 (noting under the LHWCA it is the responsibility of 

“the stevedore, the longshoremen’s employer, to provide a ‘reasonably safe’ place 

to work”). And, the Supreme Court has carefully explained at least some level of 

involvement in cargo operations does not automatically generate a duty on behalf 

of the shipowner. Howlett, 512 U.S. at 103 (noting that even though the vessel and 

its crew maintain some involvement in the cargo loading and storage process “[i]t 

is settled maritime custom and practice that the stevedore exercises primary control 

over the details of a cargo operation”). 

Indeed, the provision of a stowage plan to the stevedore, routine practice in 

the shipping industry, is not enough to constitute active control because “it is the 

stevedore, an independent contractor hired for its expertise in the stowage and 

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 8 of 15 
9

handling of cargo, that is charged with actual implementation of the plan.” Id. 

Nor is the simple presence of supervisory personnel during cargo operations 

sufficient to constitute “the type of active involvement and control that would 

trigger the ship’s liability.” Derr v. Kawasaki Kisen K.K., 835 F.2d 490, 494 (3d 

Cir. 1987); Bonds v. Mortensen and Lange, 717 F.2d 123, 127 n.4 (4th Cir. 1983) 

(explaining “we do not take the presence of an officer of the ship’s crew to 

constitute ‘active involvement’ in discharge operations”). The record shows 

Grieg’s involvement in the cargo loading operation was limited to the provision of 

a stowage plan to the stevedore, SSA, and the presence of a port captain to observe 

the loading process. As a matter of law, this level of passive oversight is not 

enough to create a duty based on active involvement with cargo operations under 

Scindia and its progeny. 

Miller presents no case law to rebut this conclusion and instead contends

Grieg’s use of mandatory shipping procedures represented a much greater level of 

control over the loading process than is typical in the shipping industry. These

mandatory procedures, when coupled with the supervisory presence of Grieg 

personnel, constituted enough direct control over the stevedore to constitute active 

involvement in the cargo loading process.

7

 This argument is unconvincing. 

Congress intended § 905(b) and the other 1972 amendments to the LHWCA to 

 

7 For purposes of this appeal, we assume Miller is correct and Grieg’s loading procedures 

were mandatory, unless amended by the supervisory port captain.

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 9 of 15 
10

“make the vessel answerable for its own negligence and to terminate its automatic, 

faultless responsibility for conditions caused by the negligence or other defaults of 

the stevedore.” Scindia, 451 U.S. at 168. Yet, Congress also recognized that the 

shipowner need not remain totally detached from the cargo loading operation. Id. 

Naturally, the shipowner has a business interest in the cargo and customarily 

provides a cargo plan or other loading instructions. Id. But, consistent with 

longstanding maritime process, it remains the stevedore’s job to implement those 

instructions safely, and overseeing or assisting in that implementation is beyond 

the shipowner’s “ordinary province.” Howlett, 512 U.S. at 103, 114 S. Ct. 2057 

(explaining shipowners may rely on the stevedore’s expertise in conducting cargo 

operations safely); see also Mallard v. Aluminum Co. of Can., Ltd., 634 F.2d 236, 

243 (5th Cir. Jan. 1981) (explaining the shipowner is not liable in circumstances 

where “either the stevedore or his employee is in a better position to appreciate 

fully the obvious risk and avoid the danger, particularly where the danger is within 

the control of the stevedore's own employees” (quotation omitted)). Thus, under 

Scindia, the shipowner must actually involve itself in the operational details of 

loading, or otherwise directly control the loading efforts of involved longshoremen 

effectively displacing the stevedore from its traditional control over loading 

operations. 

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 10 of 15 
11

Even if Grieg’s loading instructions were mandatory, the procedures simply 

lack direct operational guidance with respect to their implementation. There is no 

evidence in the record that Grieg’s personnel supervised the loading process, or 

were involved with the loading operation in any direct way. Instead, the 

procedures merely provide explanations for the proper storage of particular types 

of cargo, and require the stevedore to keep Grieg updated when making major 

alterations to these protocols. This type of passive guidance does not constitute the 

direct involvement in loading operations Scindia requires before an active control 

duty is imposed on the shipowner.

8

 Accordingly, we find Grieg did not owe Miller 

a duty of reasonable care based on its active involvement in cargo operations. 

B. Duty to Intervene

Under Scindia, a shipowner9 has a duty to intervene and protect a 

longshoreman once cargo operations have begun even if it is not actively involved 

 8 Miller also contends the mandatory nature of the cargo plan effectively disabled the 

stevedore from using its own judgment to “[take] ameliorative measures to avoid the hazard.” 

Keller v. United States, 38 F.3d 16, 24 (1st Cir. 1994). However, there is no evidence to support 

that assertion. Indeed, the record reveals the stevedore, SSA, retained ultimate control over the 

loading operation and had “the ability to just stop the operation” based on safety concerns. And, 

in any event, the Grieg procedures are silent with respect to the specific deployment of particular 

types of fall protections. The loading instructions simply do not reveal any attempt to restrict the 

stevedore’s ability to employ its expertise to protect Miller and the other longshoreman during 

cargo operations. Moreover, Miller does not allege the existence of any express oral or written 

agreement in which Grieg assumed safety responsibilities during loading operations. In the 

absence of such an agreement, the record does not support an inference that Grieg sought to 

displace SSA from primary operational control over loading operations. 

9 As previously noted, we assume without deciding that, under the circumstances 

presented in this case, time charterers and shipowners owe identical duties under Scindia.

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 11 of 15 
12

in those operations if “[the shipowner] becomes aware that the ship or its gear 

poses a danger to the longshoremen and that the stevedore is failing, unreasonably, 

to protect the longshoremen.” Lampkin, 823 F.2d at 1501 (quoting Clark v. 

Bothello Shipping Corp., 784 F.2d 1563, 1565 (11th Cir. 1986)). Importantly, a

shipowner only has “a duty to intervene when it has actual knowledge of a 

dangerous condition and actual knowledge that the stevedore, in the exercise of 

‘obviously improvident’ judgment, has failed to remedy it.” Greenwood v. Societe 

Francaise De, 111 F.3d 1239, 1248 (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting Pimental v. LTD 

Canadian Pacific Bul, 965 F.2d 13, 17 (5th Cir. 1992)). The duty to intervene is 

an exceedingly narrow one and “[o]nly the most egregious decisions by the 

stevedore are ‘obviously improvident.’” Harris v. Pac. Gulf-Marine, Inc., 967 F. 

Supp. 158, 165 (E.D. Va. 1997); see also Greenwood, 111 F.3d at 1249 (noting 

obvious improvidence requires the stevedore to “use an object with a defective 

condition that is so hazardous that anyone can tell that its continued use creates an 

unreasonable risk of harm even when the stevedore’s expertise is taken into 

account”).

Miller argues the record indicates the Defendants must have been aware of 

the dangerous voids in the corner of the CARRARA CASTLE’s cargo hold 

because those voids were a necessary result of the chiming method used to store 

rolls of KLB. Miller also contends the Defendants had actual knowledge that the 

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 12 of 15 
13

stevedore was failing to remedy the hazard posed by the corner voids both because 

the loading procedure actively prevented SSA from ameliorating the condition and, 

in any event, the voids created by use of the chiming method were a necessary part 

of the process that the stevedore could not have remedied. 

However, even if we assume that the Defendants had actual knowledge of 

the dangerous condition resulting from chiming the KLB rolls in the CARRARA 

CASTLE’s hull, Miller has made no showing that they had actual knowledge of 

SSA’s failure to remedy the problem. As the district court pointed out, Miller does 

not allege SSA or any of its employees ever complained to the Defendants 

regarding unsafe conditions during loading. See Roach v. M/V Aqua Grace, 857 

F.2d 1575, 1582 (11th Cir. 1988) (affirming summary judgment because absent 

complaints to the ship the owner had no notice of failure to ameliorate hazardous 

condition and thus no duty to intervene); Bonds, 717 F.2d at 127–28 (no duty to 

intervene regarding obvious hazard in part because “longshoremen proceeded to 

unload the ship’s cargo without complaint or incident”). Nor does Miller suggest

SSA took any abnormal action during the loading process. Most importantly, there 

is no indication in the record that personnel from either Navalmar or Grieg 

oversaw the loading operation, inspected the cargo hold, or otherwise acquired

actual knowledge of the stevedore’s exercise of “obviously improvident” judgment 

in failing to deal with the safety hazards posed by the large corner voids in the 

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 13 of 15 
14

KLB stacks. Accordingly, the Defendants were entitled to rely on the stevedore to 

“perform his task properly without supervision.” Scindia, 451 U.S. at 170.

Miller seeks to avoid this result by contending that the chimed method of 

stacking KLB rolls was so hazardous it simply could not have been ameliorated by 

the stevedore.

10 The use of such an inherently dangerous cargo storage method by 

the shipowner could be viewed as direct negligence and consequently might

require the shipowner to intervene and ameliorate the hazard. See Keller v. United 

States, 38 F.3d 16, 24 (1st Cir. 1994). However, the chimed method of shipping 

KLB rolls has been in widespread use for decades, and the record demonstrates 

there is nothing unusual or hazardous about the method. Additionally, Miller has 

failed to demonstrate the chimed method is so inherently dangerous the stevedore 

could not fulfill its ordinary obligation of providing longshoremen with a 

reasonably safe working environment during cargo operations. Indeed, the better 

part of Miller’s brief is spent arguing the hazards posed by chiming the KLB stacks 

were easily avoidable through the use of ordinary safety measures. This argument 

must fail as well. The district court did not err in finding the Defendants lacked 

actual knowledge regarding SSA’s inability, or failure, to remedy a dangerous fall 

 

10 Miller also argues that the mandatory loading procedures had a similar effect. But, as 

we have already explained, the loading procedures did not actually diminish the stevedore’s 

operational control over the loading operation. Nor did the procedures indicate an attempt on the 

part of Grieg to assume responsibility over the practical implementation of the cargo plan. 

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 14 of 15 
15

hazard on the CARRARA CASTLE, and consequently they had no duty to 

intervene in routine cargo loading operations under Scindia and its progeny. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-11967 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 15 of 15