Opinion ID: 1057794
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Control Over Specific Activities

Text: 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.