Opinion ID: 423985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liability of the Ship

Text: 8 Plaintiff and Pine Oak agree that the splice was defective and that it was covered by serving marline (rope wrapping). The defective splice had been installed by the ship in reliance upon the manufacturer and without inspection, apart from visual examination of the covered splice. There was no testimony that proper inspection of a splice purchased from a reliable seller required the buyer to remove the marline and look underneath the covering. There was testimony that no one had ever heard of a splice pulling out under the circumstances described in this case. The trial court decided that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the vessel, and that it had been a mistake to submit the question of negligence to the jury. 9 In concluding that there was no evidence of negligence, the court ignored Hedrick's evidence that the defective splice could have been visible even under the serving marline had Pine Oak inspected it. One witness testified that even if an eye splice were covered with serving marline, loosening of the splice would be apparent to someone looking at the throat of the splice. The General Superintendent and Safety Engineer for Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Company testified that impending failure of the splice could be observed because the tucks would visibly hump up, even under a serving marline. 10 Witnesses also testified that serving marline is no longer in customary use and that it is a bad safety practice to cover splices with it. Hedrick countered testimony that it was good seamanship to use serving marline to protect the metal and its lubrication from salt water damage with other testimony that serving marline serves no useful purpose and makes it difficult to inspect splices, entraps sea water and causes corrosion of the wire. One witness said that serving marlin on vang pendants is worse than useless. 11 Given conflicting testimony about the utility of the serving marline and its effect in concealing a possible latent defect, it was the jury's duty to decide whether the vessel was at fault under standard rules of the law of negligence. Judgment n.o.v. is proper only if the evidence was such that no reasonable person would accept it as adequate to establish the existence of each fact essential to liability. Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd., 651 F.2d 1300, 1304 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 294, 74 L.Ed.2d 278 (1982). We find in the record evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that Pine Oak could have inspected the splice and learned that it was defective before the accident occurred. 12 In Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156, 101 S.Ct. 1614, 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981), a longshoreman was injured by falling cargo when a malfunctioning winch slipped. The longshoreman's stevedore employer knew of the defect in the winch but had been using it for two days before the accident and had not informed the shipowner. The Supreme Court affirmed this court's reversal of the district court's summary judgment for the shipowner, holding that there was a triable issue whether the shipowner had actual knowledge or was reasonably chargeable with knowledge of the defective winch. The Court noted that the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), abolished the longshoreman's right to recovery for unseaworthiness, but preserved his right to recover for negligence. 451 U.S. at 164-66, 101 S.Ct. at 1620-21. 13 Where the shipowner itself supplies equipment, it has a duty to inspect the equipment before turning it over for use by the stevedore. Scindia, supra. Here it was a jury question whether an inspection would have revealed the defective splice, and whether the shipowner's breach of its duty to inspect its own equipment was therefore a proximate cause of the accident. Therefore the district court erred in granting judgment n.o.v.