Opinion ID: 50298
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Active Control

Text: As noted above, a vessel owner may be liable under Scindia’s active control duty if it actively involves itself in cargo operations or fails to protect contractors from hazards in areas under the active control of the vessel. The 2 This court has held that the principles of Scindia, though formulated in the context of the respective duties of vessel owners and stevedores, apply equally to any suit by an LHWCA-covered employee working for an independent contractor aboard a vessel. See Manuel, 103 F.3d at 33 n.6; Masinter v. Tenneco Oil Co., 867 F.2d 892, 896 (5th Cir. 1989). 10 magistrate judge held that the defendants did not breach Scindia’s active control duty because Nabors employees, not the vessel’s crew, maintained active control over the backloading operation. Fontenot does not seriously challenge this conclusion, but instead argues that although the defendants did not actively control the backloading operation, they nevertheless retained active control of the entire vessel, including the deck, throughout the backloading operation, by virtue of (1) the SEACOR-Chevron blanket time charter, (2) the JSA, and (3) industry custom. To determine whether an area is in the active control of the vessel owner, this court generally considers whether the area in question is within the contractor’s work area and whether the work area has been “turned over” to the contractor. See, e.g., Fontenot, 89 F.3d at 208 (discussing earlier cases and finding no active control where entire vessel was turned over to contractor); Pimental v. LTD Canadian Pac. Bul, 965 F.2d 13, 16-17 (5th Cir. 1992) (finding that vessel owner did not have active control over crane where crane was necessary to stevedore’s work and was being operated by stevedore); Masinter, 867 F.2d at 897 (finding that vessel owner had active control where owner did not turn over any area of vessel to 11 contractor and where owner admitted in interrogatories that its crew was solely responsible for placement of stairwell where injury occurred); Theriot, 783 F.2d at 535 (finding active control based on district court’s finding that owner “continued to control the work area [and] retain[ed] the obligation to clean the keyway deck”); Turner, 744 F.2d at 508-09 (finding active control where hazard was located “outside the area of normal and routine cargo operations” and outside longshoreman’s “work area”). None of Fontenot’s arguments merit reversal of the magistrate judge’s decision. Although, as the magistrate judge recognized, the captain of the vessel retains the ultimate authority to make decisions about the operation of the vessel and the safety of those aboard, this overarching authority is not the equivalent of “active control” for purposes of the owner’s duties under Scindia. This court has described active control within the meaning of Scindia as instead being akin to operational control at the time of the activities in question: This duty recognizes that although a vessel owner no longer retains the primary responsibility for safety in a work area turned over to an independent contractor, no such cession results as relates to areas or equipment over which the vessel’s crew 12 retains operational control. Manuel, 103 F.3d at 34 (emphasis added); cf. Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., 512 U.S. 92, 104-05 (1994) (“The vessel’s responsibilities . . . are commensurate with its access and control . . . . Because the vessel does not exercise the same degree of operational control over, and does not have the same access to, the cargo stow, its duties with respect to the stow are limited by comparison.”). Thus, even accepting Fontenot’s arguments that the captain retained ultimate control over all areas of the vessel under the blanket time charter and industry custom, neither the time charter nor custom establishes that the captain had active control over the deck during the backloading operation. Nor does the JSA establish active control. Although the JSA specified that a clear walkway should be maintained and the captain testified that it was his responsibility, Fontenot has not established that the JSA, which was also signed by Fontenot and Prosper, gave the captain active or operational control over the deck during the operation, or otherwise created an independent duty running from the vessel owners to the subcontractors working on the deck. The facts found by the magistrate judge make it clear that 13 Nabors and its employees, not the defendants, maintained active control over the deck throughout the backloading operation. The deck was the roustabouts’ work area, Nabors exercised operational control over the backloading operation itself and over the deck during the operation, and Nabors employees created the hazard that ultimately resulted in Fontenot’s injury. Accordingly, we hold that the magistrate judge correctly found that defendants did not breach Scindia’s active control duty on these facts.