Opinion ID: 50755
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Warranty of Workmanlike Performance

Text: The Owners also complain that the district court completely ignored their claim that Bertucci breached its warranty of workmanlike performance (“WWLP”). The Owners argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on this claim because there are contested matters of fact surrounding whether Bertucci’s performance breached this warranty. Bertucci argues that the warranty of workmanlike performance was abrogated by the 1972 amendments to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Bertucci argues that even to the extent that this warranty exists, this argument is an attempt by the Owners to hold Bertucci liable for duties that were not part of the parties’ agreement. The existence and effect of WWLP in admiralty contracts is a legal issue that this court reviews de novo. See In re ADM/Growmark River Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 881, 886 (5th Cir. 2000). Under the Ryan doctrine, “shore-based contractors who go aboard a vessel by the owner’s 6 arrangement or by his consent to perform service for the ship’s benefit impliedly warrant to the shipowner that they will accomplish their task in a workmanlike manner.” Parfait v. Jahncke Serv., Inc., 484 F.2d 296, 301 (5th Cir. 1973). “‘[The] petitioner’s warranty of workmanlike service . . . is comparable to a manufacturer’s warranty of the soundness of its manufactured product.’” Bosnor, S.A. de C.V. v. Tug L.A. Barrios, 796 F.2d 776, 784 (5th Cir. 1986) (quoting Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 133-34 (1956)). Although the doctrine initially applied only to personal injury cases, later cases allowed vessel owners to recover full indemnity from contractors for losses in non-personal injury cases as well, even where the ship owner was partially at fault or contributorily negligent. Id. In 1972, Congress amended the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) to abrogate the Ryan doctrine as it applied to those covered by the Act. Parfait, 484 F.2d at 302 n.4. These amendments do not apply to workers not covered by the LHWCA’s provisions. See Stevens v. East-West Towing Co., 649 F.2d 1104, 1109 n.7 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981). Nonetheless, based on these amendments, the Fifth Circuit began a gradual narrowing of the Ryan doctrine as it applied to property damage cases that were not covered directly by the LHWCA amendments. See Bosnor, 796 F.2d at 785-86. Accordingly, while a WWLP still exists for cases involving damage to cargo, it is now judged by comparative fault principles. Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. M/V Incotrans Spirit, 998 F.2d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 1993); Bosnor, 796 F.2d at 785-86. The district court legally erred in not considering whether Bertucci breached its WWLP. This kind of liability exists under current Fifth Circuit law, although liability is no longer judged by the strict liability principles of Ryan; instead, fault must be apportioned comparatively. Because the district court did not consider or address this claim at all, we remand this case for the district court 7 to consider the WWLP claim in the first instance.