Opinion ID: 294541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What Duty? What Breach of WWLP?

Text: 10 As it turns out, on the facts previously summarized, the Judge's conclusions practically eliminate any controversy over, or the existence of, any significant legal principles. He declared quite positively that (i) the ladder fell to the deck, (ii) the bracket device broke, and (iii) the defect was latent. 5 11 This puts a heavy burden on Shipowner since the question of whether a stevedore has breached its WWLP is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. Southern Stevedoring and Contracting Company v. Hellenic Lines Limited, 5 Cir., 1968, 388 F.2d 267, 1968 A.M.C. 573; D/S Ove Skou v. Hebert, 5 Cir., 1966, 365 F.2d 341, 1966 A.M.C. 2223, cert. denied, Southern Stevedoring & Contracting Co. v. D/S Ove Skou, 400 U.S. 902, 91 S.Ct. 139, 27 L.Ed.2d 139. The decision of the trier of fact cannot be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. 6 F.R.Civ.P. 52(a); McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20, 1954 A.M.C. 1999; Cia Maritima Del Nervion v. James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation, 5 Cir., 1962, 308 F.2d 120. 12 It is the shipowner's obligation to furnish a seaworthy vessel, not the stevedore's initial duty to determine whether the shipowner has complied with the demands made by the law. Accordingly the stevedore does not have to conduct the sort of detailed inspection as would a shipowner and, conversely, the duty of inspection is to follow up adequately on deficiencies which are either obvious or revealed by a cursory examination. 7 The trial Judge was entitled to credit testimony implying that neither condition existed. This would include Longshoreman's testimony that on each of the three times he passed directly in front of the bar upon which the hooks of the temporary ladder were attached, at a distance of approximately 16 inches, he noticed nothing unusual. Added to this was the negative testimony from Stevedore's foreman and from the ship's Chief Officer. 13 The finding that the bracket device broke makes Shipowner's position both formidable and awkward. To succeed at this juncture he must virtually show that the Judge was compelled to find that a cursory observation by Stevedore 8 would have revealed the break in the bracket or, if not yet complete, the obvious warning signs of an imminent fracture. 14 Thus the case is but a repetition of our earlier declaration that 'Where there has been no notice of a damaged or faulty ladder, the courts have not implied a hypothetical duty to inspect, and the stevedore has not been required to indemnify the shipowner.' Cia Maritima Del Nervion v. James J. Flanagan Shipping Corp., supra, at 120, 124. See also T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Skibs A/S Hassel, 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 745, 1966 A.M.C. 1700; Vaccaro v. Alcoa Steamship Company, 2 Cir., 1968, 405 F.2d 1133. It is true that once a stevedore is placed on notice that a defective condition exists aboard ship, it must take immediate, affirmative action to correct it, and to make the ship safe for its intended use. Santomarco v. United States, 2 Cir., 1960, 277 F.2d 255, 1960 A.M.C. 1089; Smith v. Jugosalvenska Linijska Plovidea, 4 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 176, 1960 A.M.C. 841. But this is not met for want of (i) notice or constructive notice 9 and (ii) an opportunity for correction. For whatever may be the status of 'instantaneous unseaworthiness' vis-a-vis Shipowner and Sieracki seaman 10 in order for the stevedore to be held liable for indemnity for an accident that occurs subsequent to its discovery of the defective equipment, the stevedore must have sufficient time between the discovery and the accident to correct the defect. See Orlando v. Prudential Steamship Corp., 2 Cir., 1963, 313 F.2d 822. Nor are the cases 11 so heavily pressed by Shipowner contrary to our holding. 15 Shipowner's contention that indemnity is compelled because of Stevedore's violation of 1504.25(f) of the Health and Safety Regulations 12 likewise stands on these decisive findings. 16 We have given the fullest sweep to these regulations as mandating a standard of safety to be met by a stevedore. Manning v. M/V 'Sea Road', 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 603; Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc., 5 Cir., 1969, 412 F.2d 1011, 1969 A.M.C. 1513; Marshall v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 5 Cir., 1964, 334 F.2d 131, 1964 A.M.C. 1686. But they are to be fairly construed and applied in the light of each record. The provision in C.F.R. to which Shipowner refers provides that portable ladders 'be of adequate strength and lashed, blocked, or otherwise secured against shifting or slipping.' Here, on the findings, the accident occurred, not because the hooking device was inherently defective or inadequate, but rather because it broke allowing the well-hooked ladder to slip off the bracket. There was no proof offered-- and certainly none from Shipowner-- that had the bracket not been defective the hooks would have been inadequate. Granting that Stevedore-- in addition to Shipowner-- had an affirmative duty to see that the portable ladder was 'lashed, blocked, or otherwise secured' the Court was entitled to conclude that had the bracket not been defective, the ladder was 'otherwise secured' by the bracket device and ladder hooks. 17 Indemnity was denied, not because the conduct of Shipowner precluded enforcement, but rather because Stevedore did not breach its WWLP. This result is faithful to Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co., 1958, 355 U.S. 563, 78 S.Ct. 438, 2 L.Ed.2d 491, 1958 A.M.C. 501. 18 Affirmed.