Source: https://secondcircuit.lexroll.com/lubrano-v-royal-netherlands-s-s-co-622-f-2d-29-2nd-cir-1980/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:16:26+00:00

Document:
MARIO LUBRANO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROYAL NETHERLANDS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 336, Docket 79-7228.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.Argued December 10, 1979.
Lord, New York City, on brief), for defendant-appellant.
Morris Cizner, New York City (Zimmerman Zimmerman, New York City, on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.
 This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of a longshoreman injured while loading drums of tallow on defendant’s ship. It is the second time that this matter has been before this Court. On the first appeal, we reversed a judgment entered upon a directed verdict in favor of the shipowner. See Lubrano v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Co., 572 F.2d 364 (2d Cir. 1978). We reverse again, this time because we believe that the district court did not accurately describe and delimit the duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
 Because familiarity with this Court’s prior opinion is assumed and there was no substantial change in the proof on retrial, we will not repeat what has already been said. We would only emphasize that the testimony did not disclose any defect in, or dangerous condition of, defendant’s ship, which made it an unsafe place in which to work. The hazard which allegedly caused plaintiff’s injury was created by plaintiff and his fellow employees in the course of and as part of their own work efforts. The question for the jury on retrial was whether the defendant could be held partially responsible for the improper workmanship because it had assumed supervision and control of the stevedore’s operations by directing that the work continue as it did.
 Instead of instructing the jury on this limited issue, the district court charged generally that defendant owed plaintiff “a continuing duty to use reasonable care so as to furnish him with a reasonably safe place in which to work and perform his duties”. Under the facts of this case, we believe that charge must have confused the jury as to the exact nature of the obligation owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
14 N.Y.2d 129, 134, 249 N.Y.S.2d 416, 418, 198 N.E.2d 590, 591 (1964); Gasper v. Ford Motor Co., 13 N.Y.2d 104, 110-11, 242 N.Y.S.2d 205, 208-09, 192 N.E.2d 163, 165-66 (1963); Zucchelli v. City Constr. Co., 4 N.Y.2d 52, 56, 172 N.Y.S.2d 139, 142, 149 N.E.2d 72, 74 (1958); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 426 (1965).
S.A., 577 F.2d 798, 804 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 881, 99 S.Ct. 222, 58 L.Ed.2d 195 (1978); Hickman v. Jugoslavenska Linijska Plovidba Rijeka, Zvir, 570 F.2d 449, 451-52 (2d Cir. 1978); Ruffino v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co., 559 F.2d 861, 862-63 (2d Cir. 1977). These holdings would be virtually emasculated if the phrase “safe place to work” were so broadly defined as to make the shipowner responsible for the equipment and work methods of an independent stevedoring company.
 When the “safe place to work” charge is given, the jurors should be instructed as to the legal parameters of the duty owed. They should be told that the doctrine does not make the shipowner responsible for the equipment and work methods of the independent stevedore or the stevedore’s negligent acts occurring as a detail of the work. Cox v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S. A., supra, 577 F.2d at 804; Hickman v. Jugoslavenska Linijska Plovidba Rijeka, Zvir, supra, 570 F.2d at 451-52; Ruffino v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co., supra, 559 F.2d at 862-63. In the absence of evidence that a shipowner has furnished a longshoreman an unsafe place in which to work, it is better not to instruct the jury on that issue at all. See Mandel v. Pennsylvania R. R., 291 F.2d 433, 435 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 938, 82 S.Ct. 379, 7 L.Ed.2d 337 (1961).
 The shortage of dunnage did not create per se a hazardous condition on defendant’s ship. If the stevedore’s employees stopped loading when they ran out of dunnage, there would have been no accident. The issue for the jury on retrial was whether the defendant “had the men keep working” or “affirmatively joined” in the stevedore’s decision to keep them working Lubrano v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Co., supra, 572 F.2d at 367 n.4. This was not how the case was presented to the jury.
. . . if there is again evidence that a ship’s officer, after being notified of the open and obvious danger of insufficient dunnage for a slippery cargo, had the men keep working or joined in the stevedore’s decision to do so, then there would be a jury question.
 572 F.2d at 367 (footnote omitted). Since there was such evidence at the second trial, the judge dutifully followed our direction and submitted the case to the jury; thereafter, the jury returned a verdict of $30,000, which the judge refused to set aside.
supervise an experienced stevedoring company and the stevedoring company is primarily responsible for the safety of its own employees.
. . . a shipowner is not liable for harm to a longshoreman in a dangerous condition on the vessel which is known or obvious, except where the shipowner should anticipate the harm to the longshoreman, despite his knowledge or the obviousness of the condition.
In that regard, I charge you that while the longshoreman may be under a duty to avoid harm likely to result from open and obvious dangers, he may not be in a position to avoid the danger even though aware of it. For instance, his duties subject to the orders of his superiors may require his unavoidable exposure to a known danger. A longshoreman is not necessarily required to leave his job or face trouble for delaying work.
Under such circumstances, if you find them, the shipowner has a duty of exercising reasonable care to correct such an obvious condition of danger. In other words, if you find the plaintiff had to work in an area of obvious danger in order to carry out his job duties, and if you find that the shipowner could reasonably have anticipated that he would use the area, then the shipowner is liable, if it does not exercise reasonable care to correct the obvious danger.
In assessing whether or not the shipowner exercised reasonable care in such circumstances, you may wish to consider whether or not the shipowner was reasonably entitled to assume that the condition would be timely remedied by the stevedore.
If you find that the vessel had a right reasonably to assume that the condition would be timely remedied by the stevedore, then your verdict should be for the defendant.
If, on the other hand, you find this condition existed and the vessel knew of the condition and should have anticipated the harm to the plaintiff, despite the plaintiff’s knowledge of the condition or its obviousness, and the shipowner failed to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances to correct the condition, then you should find negligence on the part of the vessel.
 The jury was instructed that the shipowner had no duty to supervise the stevedore and that the shipowner should not be held liable if it reasonably assumed that a known or obvious condition would be remedied in a timely manner by the stevedore. I do not understand the majority to hold that these or any of the judge’s other instructions were wrong. Instead, a third trial is required on the theory that the charge “must have confused the jury” because the issue on retrial was “whether the defendant could be held partially responsible for the improper workmanship because it had assumed supervision and control of the stevedore’s operations by directing that the work continue as it did.” Alternatively, the majority says that the issue on retrial was “whether the defendant `had the men keep working’ or `affirmatively joined’ in the stevedore’s decision to keep them working,” citing our prior decision in this case, 572 F.2d at 367 n.4.
not the standard for review. To put plaintiff to the trouble and expense of a third trial more than seven years after his injury and after a justifiable jury verdict in his favor is a sorry exercise in judicial administration. Therefore, I dissent.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 426
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.