Opinion ID: 390863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Negligence of Avondale

Text: 14 The district court found Avondale's failure to remedy the situation (missing bitts and cleats) resulted in a continuing negligent act (T)he owner is also liable for continuing negligence when, once notified, he fails to remedy the condition which renders the vessel unseaworthy. 15 Since the photographic exhibits show that the bitts or cleats were in fact not missing, Avondale cannot be held to be negligent on the grounds that they were. The district court found that Stevens, the injured DELTA DAWN deckhand, told an Avondale employee, Douglas Adams, that there were no other places on the barge to which he could secure the lines, and held that Avondale was thus on notice that the ship was unseaworthy and was negligent for failing to correct the situation. If Stevens made such a statement, he misstated the facts. 6 Avondale cannot be found negligent for failing to correct Stevens' misconception. 16 Again recognizing the tenuousness of its negligence argument based on missing cleats and bitts, East-West suggests in its brief that Barge W-102 was in a generally dilapidated condition it had holes in its deck and that Avondale was negligent in failing to repair the barge. This argument is meritless. No suggestion was made that the holes in the barge's deck were a proximate cause of Stevens' injuries, nor could any such suggestion be seriously advanced. Likewise, East-West's argument that the bitts and cleats on the barge were in unsound condition is conclusively refuted by the photographs in evidence showing the bitts and cleats in actual use. 17