___________ No. 96-2690

___________ In the Matter of: Missouri * Towing & FR&R Leasing, a * general partnership; Jefferson * Barracks Marine Service, Inc., * a corporation for exoneration * from, or limitation of, * liability, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Appellees, * Eastern District of Missouri. * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Tammy Lynn Strange, As * independent administrator of * the Estate of Mark E. Strange, * *

Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 29, 1997 Filed: February 12, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. This case arises from the accidental drowning of Mark Strang e, a barge cleaner employed by appellee Jefferson Barracks Marin e Service, Inc. In 1992, Strange and fellow employees John Mo ore and Mike Burris were cleaning a coal barge located in the Mississippi River when Strange collapsed a nd fell overboard; three days later, the Coast Guard discovered his body without a life jacket several miles downstream. Appellees, owners of the tugboat tha t transported the barge cleaners to the coal barge, filed a co mplaint under the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act, 46 U.S.C
. §§ 181-195, seeking exoneration from liability for Strange's death.The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District 1 Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Strange's wife, child, and est ate (claimants) filed claims against the tu gboat owners in the limitation proceeding, pursuant t o section5(b) of the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers ' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). The district court granted 1 the tugboat owners' subsequent motion for summary judgment, an d claimants now appeal.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying th e same standard as the district court. See Earnest v. Courtney , 64 F.3d 365, 366-67 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Under sectio n 905(b) , longshoremen may bring a cause of action against vesse l owners whose negligence caused death or injury. See 33 U.S.C
. § 905( b); Scindia Steam Nav. Co. v. De Los Santos , 451 U.S. 156 , 167-68 (1981); see also Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer , 462 U.S. 523, 531 (1983). The duties of care vessel owners ow e longs horemen include a "turnover duty," which requires upo n commencement of stevedoring operations that the ship's condi tion be such that an expert and experienced stevedore exercising rea sonable care can perform its operation s with reasonable safety, and that a shipowner warn the stevedore of hidden hazards. Howlett v
. Birkdale Shipping Co. , 512 U.S. 92, 98 (1994); Scindia Steam , 451 U.S. at 167-78.
Cl aimants argued the tugboat owners breached their turnove r duty by failing to equip the t ugboat with life jackets. Assuming, without deciding, that the tugboat owners had such an obligation, we conclude the undisputed evidence fails to demonstrate that the tugboat owners breached it. T he uncontradicted testimony of Moore and Burris--the only eyewitnesses--was that company policy r equired employees to wear life jackets while on barges, the tugboat wa s-3-

typica llyequipped with life jackets, and Strange was wearing a life jacket prior to falling overboard to his death. The absence-4-

of a life jacket when Strange's body was recovered does not refute, nor is even necessarily incons istent with, the eyewitness accounts so as to p reclude summary judgment. See Moody v. St. Charle s County , 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.