Opinion ID: 1057794
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Active Control

Text: Under the active control duty, a vessel may be liable if it actively involves itself in the cargo operations. Scindia, 451 U.S. at 167. Exxon argues that there was no active involvement because its supervision did not extend beyond general oversight. Using the language of the court in Dow v. Oldendorff Carriers GMBH & Co., 387 Fed. Appx. 504, 507 (5th Cir. 2010), Exxon claims that Minton was required to prove that Exxon actively controlled the methods and operative details of the Shipyard workers' repair work. Exxon argues that Minton provided no evidence to show that Exxon told the Shipyard workers how to complete their repair jobs on its vessels. Exxon also contends that Minton did not present any evidence to show that Exxon employees worked with asbestos in the vicinity of Minton, with Minton's witnesses testifying only that some of the Exxon employees' work might have included work with asbestos. Exxon argues that Minton was unable to put 6 forward concrete evidence that any asbestos was being used in repair work without the necessary controls while Minton was on board the vessel. We disagree.
In order to establish the duty of active control, the vessel must have substantially controlled or been in charge of
instrumentality which caused the injury; or (iii) the specific activities the stevedore undertook. Davis v. Portline Transportes Mar. Internacional, 16 F.3d 532, 540 (3rd Cir. 1994). Sufficient evidence of any one of the three components triggers the duty of active control. Regarding Exxon's control over the specific activities that the Shipyard undertook, C. Lloyd Ware, a former estimating supervisor for the Shipyard, testified that Exxon's port engineer maintained overall authority, leaving the Shipyard unable to tell Exxon's crew working on the vessel what to do. This exercise of authority was part of Exxon's designated procedure, evidenced by a portion of Exxon's 1974 Repair Procedures: The Repair Inspector[, with the assistance of the officers and crew,] has the responsibility of supervising the overhaul. He issues all necessary instructions to the shipyard foremen, inspects the work to see that it is properly done and coordinates the necessary . . . inspections. 7 Moreover, Julian Draper, the Shipyard's pipefitter foreman, explained in his testimony that the Shipyard's trade foreman would contact Exxon's chief engineer, chief mate, or port engineer after receiving the job orders for repairs on Exxon's vessels to make sure that the Shipyard's personnel understood the job order, and to assure that the job would be completed to Exxon's satisfaction. Sometimes, as Draper explained, the job orders would specifically require consultation with the chief or port engineer before a job order was commenced. When no such requirement was in place, the job repair specifications, such as the 1975 job order which was presented to the jury, nevertheless provided detailed specifications for each step of each individual repair to be completed by the Shipyard. The evidence presented at trial as to Exxon's control over the repair work was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Exxon had a duty to Minton based on its control of the specific activities undertaken by the Shipyard employees.
Not only was the evidence sufficient to show that Exxon actively controlled the activities on its vessels, but the evidence also supports the jury's finding that the hazard at issue, asbestos, was present in the areas under Exxon's control. Despite Exxon's argument that manufacturers were 8 using asbestos substitutes as early as 1971 because of widespread knowledge of the health risks surrounding the use of asbestos-containing materials, Minton presented evidence that Exxon's vessels contained asbestos during the period of time when Minton worked with Exxon at the shipyard. Notably, Minton produced for the jury piecework orders for the Exxon New Orleans, the newest vessel that Minton worked on during his time as ship repair staff supervisor. In the orders, asbestos blankets, asbestos plaster, and asbestos cloth are all listed with frequency. Multiple witnesses, including Draper, also testified to the use of asbestos-containing materials on Exxon vessels through the mid-1970s. Draper recounted the methods and processes of using asbestos in the Exxon vessels, stating that the use of asbestos and the methods of using asbestos was the way you did business on the Exxon ships during the time he worked with Minton. The evidence was therefore sufficient to establish that Exxon had active control of the asbestos, a hazard present on Exxon vessels during the 1966-1977 period during which Minton was employed as ship repair staff supervisor.