Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20122 Su m m ar y Cal endar
N. M EZ A P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. M S C S H IP M A N A G E M E N T H KL T D
. D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 4: 07- c v- 2096
B ef ore JO L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T h i s i s a negli gen ce s u i tst em m i n g f rom i nj u ri es s u st ai n ed byN arci sco M e z a w hi l e he w as w o r ki ng as a l o ngs ho r e m an f o rJ am e s J
. Fl ana ga n Shi ppi ng C o r p o r a tio n (“F la n a g a n ”) o n th e d e c k o f a ca r g o s h i p m a n a g e d b yM S C S h ip M a na g e m e nt H K Li m i t e d ( “M SC” )
. W hi l e M e z a was s e c ur i ng l o a d e d c ar go c o nt ai ne r s t o t he de c k o f t he s hi p, he w as s t r uc k by a m e t al pi e c e o f e qui pm e nt kno w n a s a “ t w i s t
- l o c k” t hatde t ac he d a nd f e l lf r o m a c o nt ai ne rt hatw as b e i ng United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20122

2 l oad ed over h e a d b y crane. M eza sued M S C f or negl i gen ce un der 3 3 U .S .C . § 9 0 5 (b ), a p r o v is i o n o f t h e L o n g s h o r e a n d H a r b o rW o r k e r ’s C om pen sati on A ct . M eza al l eges tha tM S C v i ol ated it s “ t u rnover du t y, ” w h i ch e s s e n tia llyo b lig a te s a s h ip o w n e rto : (1 ) tu r n o v e rth e s h ip a n d its e q u ip m e n t in reasona bl y safe cond i t i on ; an d ( 2) w arn t h e st eved ore of an y n on - obvious defect s. Se eHo wle t tv . Bi r k d a leS h i pp i ngCo
. , S
. A. , 5 1 2 U .S . 9 2 , 9 8

– 9 9 (1 9 9 4 ). It is u n d i sp u ted tha t t h e tw i st- l ock tha t st ru c k M e z a w a s p rov i d ed byM S C to Fl ana ga n, a nd was t hus e qui pm e nto f t he s hi p s ubj e c tt o t he t ur no ve rdut y. The di st r i c tc our tgr ant ed sum m ar y j udgm ent i n favor of M SC on t he gr ounds t hat t he r e w as i ns uf

f i c i e ntev i de nc e t o de t e r m i ne w he t he ri tw as m o r e l i ke l y t hatt he t w i st
- l ock fel lbecau se i t w as defect ive, i n w h i ch case M S C coul d be h el d l i able, or because i tw as i n corr ect l y att ach ed bya F l an aga n em pl oyee, i n w h i ch case M S C cou l d n ot b e he l d l i a b l e. M ez a a p p ea l s, a rg u i n g t h a t th e evid e n c e is suf f i c i entt o s how t hat i t w as m or e l i kel y t hatt he t w i stl oc k fel lbe c ause i tw as defec t ive, not because i tw as i n corr ect l y att ach ed bya F l an aga n em pl oyee. T h i s c ou rtrevi ew s a di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of sum m ary j u dg m en tde n ovo, a p p ly in gth e s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. SeeXL Spec i al ty I ns. Co. v. Ki e w i tOf

f s ho r eSe r v s . , Lt d. , 5 1 3 F .3 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Hir r a s v . Na t’l R
. R
. Pas s e nge rCor

p. , 9 5 F .3 d 3 9 6 , 3 9 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). S u m m a r yju d g m e n t is pro peri f

t he r ec or d re fl ects “ t hatt her e i s no ge nui ne i ss ue as t o a ny m at er i al fa c ta n d t h a tt h e mo v a n ti s e n t i t l e d t o j ud g m e n ta s a mat t e ro f l a w. ” F e d
. R. C iv. P
. 5 6 (c). M e z a as s e r t s t hatt he t e s t i m o ny give n by W i l l Phi l l i ps , t he f o r e m an o f

t he F l an ag an s t e ve do r e c r e w a tt he t i m e o f t he a c c i de nt , de m o ns t r at e s t hatt he t w i st
- l ock w as not i n correc tly at t ach ed. M eza speci f i cal l y ci t es t w o parts ofN o. 09- 20122

3 Ph i l l i ps’ s t es t i m ony: ( 1) t hat t he t w i st
- l oc k t hatf el lon M ez a w as at t ac hed by an expe r i enc ed l ongs hor em an w ho s houl d have know n w het hert he t w i st
- l oc k w as fastened correc t l y; an d ( 2) t h at Ph i l l i ps saw t h e tw ist- l ock t h at f el lon M eza be i ng at t ac he d t o t he c o nt ai ne r f r o m w hi c h i t fe l l , and di d no tsee anyt hi ng i ndi c at i ng t hatt he t w i s t
- l o c k was i m pr o pe r l y at t ac he d. I n a dd i t i o n t o t he testi m on y ci ted b y M ez a , P h i l l i p s a l so testi fi ed tha t he w a s n ot cl ose en ou gh to se e f ors ure w het hert he t w i st
- l oc k t hats t r uck M ez a w as pro per l y at t ac hed, t hat P h illip s n e v e re x a m in e d th e tw is t-lo c k , th a t P h i l l ip s co u ld n o t s a yfo rce r ta in w h et h er orn otthere w as a n ythi n g defec t ive abou tthe t w i st
- l ock, a n d t h at based on hi s experi en ce as a l on gsh orem an an d w h at he saw on the da y of t h e i nj u ry P h illip s b e lie v e d th a t th e tw is t-lo c k m o s t lik e lyfe ll b e c a u s e it w a s n o t p r o p e r ly a tt a c h e d
. T h e testi m on y cited b y M ez a i s n ot su ff i ci en t t o ra i se a fa ct is s u e a s to w he t he ri tw as m o r e l i ke l y t hatt he t w i s tl o c k f e l lb e c aus e i tw as de fe c t ive , a nd n ot be ca u se itw a s i n corre ctl y a ttach ed bya F l a n a ga n em p l oy ee . I n o rd er to survi ve sum m ary j u dg m en t , M eza w as requir ed to present evi den ce show i n g n ot on l y t h at i ti s possi bl e t hatthe t w i stl oc k fel lbeca use i tw as def ec t ive, butt hat t he t w i s t
- l o c k m ore l i kel y th a n n otfe l lb e c aus e i tw as de fe c t ive . The Phi l l i ps te s tim o n yis e v id e n c e o n l y t h a t itis p o s s ib le th a t t h e tw is t-lo c k fe ll b e c a u s e it w a s d e fe c tiv e ; it is n o t e v id e n c e th a t t h e tw is t-lo c k m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t fe ll b e c a u s e it w a s d e fe c tiv e . W e th e r e fo r e h o ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r rin g r a n tin gs u m m a r yju d g m e n t in fa v o ro f M S C
. Se e Li t t le v . Li qui d Ai rCor p. , 37 F
. 3d 1069, 1078–7 9 ( 5t h C i r . 1994) (hol di ng t hats um m ar y j udgm entw as ap propri ate because t h ere w as no evidence t h at any on e of a n u m b er ofN o. 09- 20122

4 speculat ive t h eori es of causati on w as m ostli kely)
. T h e j u dg m en tof the di st ri ct c o u r ti s A F F I RMED.