Opinion ID: 277139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Weyerhaeuser's Conduct

Text: 8 In Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co., supra, 355 U.S. at 567, 78 S.Ct. at 441, the Supreme Court suggested that the vessel owner was entitled to indemnification from a substandard performing stevedore, absent conduct on its part sufficient to preclude recovery. The Supreme Court has not indicated what conduct will be sufficient to preclude recovery, and the question has given rise to some confusion. Compare Rederi A/B Nordstjernan v. Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co., 372 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1967), with Albanese v. N/V Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats., 346 F.2d 481 (2d Cir. 1965), reversed on other grounds, 382 U.S. 283, 86 S.Ct. 429, 15 L. Ed.2d 327 (1965). As we noted in the Nordstjernan case, Albanese stands for the proposition that indemnification cannot be precluded unless the vessel owner's conduct shall at the least prevent or seriously handicap the stevedore in doing a workmanlike job. We said in the Nordstjernan case that conduct which amounts to such a handicap may not necessarily preclude indemnification. Where the vessel owner's conduct does not amount to such a handicap, however, the vessel owner, as a matter of law, is not to be precluded from indemnification. 9 In the case at hand the court below found that Weyerhaeuser had not prevented or seriously handicapped H & H in doing a workmanlike job. (Finding of Fact No. 24, C.T. pp. 94-95.) That finding is supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous. Weyerhaeuser's only failure was in Mandle's (a) failing to warn Grant of the altered construction of the No. 1 hold, and (b) requesting that Grant, with only one flashlight between them, accompany him into the hold. (Finding of Fact No. 23, C.T. p. 94.) But these could have handicapped Grant only if Mandle had denied him the right to use additional light in the hold or Mandle had forced Grant to proceed with inadequate lighting. The evidence shows that Mandle did no more than request that Grant accompany him, 2 and Grant admitted that he chose to proceed with only one light because he knew that Mandle was familiar with the ship. (R. T. pp. 47-48.) On the whole we cannot say that the court below was in error in concluding that H & H was not prevented or seriously handicapped in doing a work-manlike job. 10 The judgment is affirmed.