2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-4-2009 

# M ulle n v . Alic ante P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3083

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ulle n v . Al icant e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1783. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1783Th e Ho n o r a b l e S a n d r a Da yO’ Co n n o r , Re t i r e d As s o c i a t e J u s t i c e o f th e S u p r e me * C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 3083 S T E P H E N MU L L E N ; D O N N A MU L L E N , H / W, A p p e llan ts v. A L IC A N T E C A R R IE R S H IP P IN G C O R P .; D E L M O N T E F R E S H P R O D U C E IN T E R N A T IO N A L , IN C .; D E L M O N T E F R E S H P R O D U C E N .A ., IN C .; CO M E RC I AL I Z ADOR A I NT E RN AT I ONAL CO NS E RB A S . A. O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 06722 ( H onor abl e B ruce W . K auff m an) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember20, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , a n d R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudges , a n d O ’C O N N O R , R et i r ed Ass oci at e Jus t i ce *

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 4, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1331, 1332. W e have 1 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §1291 w hi ch pr ovi des appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overal l fi nal decis i on s of dis tri ctcou rt s. I ni t i al l y , M ul l en fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tthr ee de fenda nt s : A l i cant e C arr i er 2 S h ip p in g C o rp ., D e l M o n te F re sh P ro d u c e In ter n a tio n a l, In c . an d D e l M o n te N .A . A ll thr ee de fenda nt s fi l ed M ot i ons forSum m aryJ udgm ent . O n A ugus t1, 2004, the D i s tr i ct Co u r tg r a n t e d th e mo t i o n s f o rAl i c a n t e Ca rr i e ra n d De l M o n t e I n t e rn a t i o n a l . On S eptem ber 27, 2004 , the D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed D el M on t e N . A . ’s m oti on and the case pr ocee ded t o a j ury . M ul l en i ni t i al l yappea l ed al l of thes e or der s , buthas s i nce s ett l ed w ith A lic a n te a n d D e l M o n te F re s h P ro d u c e . 2 S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . St ephen M ul l en appe al s the or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on fora new tr i al . M ul l en chal l enges one of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j uryi ns truct i ons and the s uffi ci encyof evi dence j u s t i f y i n g i t . F o rth e f

o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. 1 I. M ul l en i s a ca r eerl ongs hor eman w ho s uffe r ed i nj uryw hi l e di s engagi ng car go sli n g s fro m p all ets o f n ew lyarrived sh ipm en ts of b an an as. H e f

il ed a p erso n al i n

jury compl ai ntagai ns tD el M ont e Fr es h Pr oduce N . A . ( D el M ont e N . A . ) and other s under g e n e ra l m a ritim e law a n d th e L o n g sh o re m e n ’s a n d H a rb o r W o rk e rs’ C o m p e n sa tio n A c t, 33 U . S. C . § 905( b) . D el M ont e N . A . w as the oper at orof the t erm i nal w her e the ca r go 2 w as bei ng unl oaded a nd, M ul l en cont ends , i n contr ol of the def ect i ve s l i ng w hi ch ca us ed hi s i nj ury . T he j uryr eturned a ve r di ctabs ol vi ng D el M ont e N . A . of anyl i abi l i tyfor M ul l en’ s i nj ury . M ul l en t i m el yappea l ed. II .3

T w o n eg li g en ce p ri n ciples a re a t i ssu e in th is m att er: ob v iou sn ess a n d co n tr ibu tory n e g l i g e n c e . Ob v i o u s n e s s i s a d e f e n s e i n n e g l i g e n c e c o n t e x t s i n c l u d i n g g e n e r a l ma r i t i me la w . H ow l et tv. B i rkdal e Shi

ppi ng C o. , 512 U . S. 92, 99 ( 1994) ( i dent i fy i ng the obvi ous nes s of a ha zar d as a bart o r ecove ry ) . C om par at i ve negl i gence i s the negl i gence re g im e a p p lie d in th e m a ri tim e c o n te x t. So c o ny -V a c u u m O il C o . v. Sm ith , 305 U . S. 424, 431 ( 1939) ( “A nyrul e of a s s um pt i on of r i s k i n admi r al ty , w hat everi t s s cope, m us tbe appl i ed i n conj unct i on w i th t he es t abl i s hed admi r al tydoctr i ne of c om par at i ve negl i gence an d in h arm o n yw ith it . ”). M ul l en cont ends he i nj ur ed hi s r i ghts houl derw hen the s l i ng he w as r emovi ng b e c a m e stu c k in th e p a llet (a lleg e d lyd u e to a k n o t) a n d h e f o rc e f u llyy a n k e d th e slin g to di s l odge i t . A ttr i al , m ul t i pl e w i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng M ul l en, t es t i fi ed thats l i ngs gots tuck o n a re g u lar b a sis a n d th a t th e b e st w a yto d e a l w ith stu c k slin g s w a s to u se a f o rk lift to fr ee the s l i ngs , r atherthan t o for cef ul l yy ank them. T r i al t es t i m onydemonstr at ed that l ongs hor emen, i ncl udi ng M ul l en, r e- ci r cul at ed knott ed s l i ngs i ns t ead of di s pos i ng of them. I m por t ant l y , the j uryhear d t es t i m onythatD el M ont e N . A . i ns truct ed M ul l en and hi s fel l ow l ongs hor emen t o di s pos e of knott ed s l i ngs . T her e w as unchal l enged e vi dence th a tn e w s l i n g s w e r e a l w a ys a v a i l a b l e . a n d u n d e rth e l o n g s h o r e m e n ’ s c o n tr o l . T h e j u r y, thus , hear d t es t i m onythatthe l ongs hor emen knew of the dange rpos ed bydamaged sl i ng s.4

G eneral m ari t i m e l aw ado pts l and -based t ortpri ncipl es of w hich obv i ou sness i s a d e f e n s e . Sci ndi a St eam N

avi gat i on C o. v. D e Los Sant os , 451 U . S. 156, 168 ( i dent i fy i ng leg isla tiv e in ten t th a t m a ritim e liab ili tyis to b e ju d g e d b ylan d -b a se d sta n d a rd s). W h ile it i s true, as M ul l en cont ends , the 

### Longs hor e m e n’ s and Har bor W orke r s ’ Com

pe ns at i on A ct, 3 3 U .S .C . § 9 0 5 (b ), ap p lies a n a c tiv e o p e ra tio n s d u ty , this A c t is lim ited o n lyto v e s s e ls a n d th e re f

o re is n o t a p p lic a b le h e re . Da v is v . P o r t l i n e T r a n s p o r t e s Ma r i t i me I nt er naci onal , 1 6 F .3 d 5 3 2 , 5 4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (s p e c if ica llylim iti n g § 9 0 5 (b ) c laim s to s itu a tio n s w h e re th e v e s s e l c o n tr o ls th e a re a a n d th e in s tru m e n ta lity o f th e in ju ry). M ul l en ci t es no cas es w her e a 

### § 905( b) act i ve oper at i ons dutyhas been appl i ed t o a t erm i nal oper at or . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr e- s t at ed w el l - s ett l ed l aw w hen i ti ns truct ed the j urythat , “The defe ndanti s notr equi r ed t o pr ot ectthe pl ai nt i ff f r om danger s w hi ch the d e f e n d a n t c o u ld re a s o n a b ly b e lie v e w o u ld b e o b v io u s to th e p la in tif f.” C ontr i but orynegl i gence w as i nj ect ed i nt o the ca s e bypl ai nt i ff’ s ow n j urychar ge s ubm i s s i on. W hen the D i s tr i ctC our tas ked M ul l en’ s couns el dur i ng the cha r gi ng confe r ence t o cl ar i fythe di ffe r ence betw een c om par at i ve and c ontr i but orynegl i gence , pl ai nt i ff’ s couns el s ai d t he di ffe r ence w as “ac ademi c” a nd cons ent ed t o the court ’ s us e of th e w o rd “ c o n trib u to ry ” n e g lig e n c e in th e ju d g e ’s ju ryc h a rg e . T h u s, to th e e x ten t th e re is c o n f u s i o n i n th e n o m e n c l a tu r e i n th i s m a t t e r , i tw a s c r e a t e d b y M u l l e n . M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y, the D i s tr i ctC our ti n fac ti ns truct ed the j urycorr ect l yon obvi ous nes s and compar at i ve n e g lig e n c e , th e lia b ility s c h e m e th a t a p p lie d in th is c a s e .5

M ull en als o co ntends the ev i den ce ci t ed at tri al did not j ust i fythe o bv i ou sness c h a rg e . B u t ev e n M u llen tes tifie d th a t h e h a d e n c o u n ter e d stu c k slin g s, th a t h e re g u lar ly r e- ci r cul at ed knott ed s l i ngs hi m s el f and c oul d have be en i nj ur ed byone of hi s ow n r eci r cul at ed s l i ngs i n t hi s cas e, and thatforkl i ft s w er e ava i l abl e, r eadyt o fr ee the s l i ng m echan i cal l y . T here w as abun dan tevidence from w hich a j urycou l d find t his w as a know n and obvi ous condi t i on t o t he pl ai nt i ff. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s obvi ous h az ard instruction w as p rop er. W e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t.