Opinion ID: 195675
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Vessel Owner's Duty to Warn

Text: 32 The second sub-category of turnover duty is the duty to warn prior to turnover, which requires the vessel owner to alert the stevedore-employer to any latent or concealed defect including any hazards on the ship or with respect to its equipment which are known to the vessel [owner] or should be known to it in the exercise of reasonable care and which would likely be encountered by the stevedore in the course of his cargo operations[,] are not known by the stevedore[,] and would not be obvious to or anticipated by him if reasonably competent in the performance of his work. Scindia, 451 U.S. at 167, 101 S.Ct. at 1622 (emphasis added). 33 Although Keller concedes that the trial court correctly quoted verbatim from the Scindia exegesis relating to these two turnover duties Keller, No. 81-549-SD, slip op. at 10-11, he argues that the court focused its factual inquiry exclusively on whether the defendant vessel owner owed Keller a continuing duty of intervention. See Brief for Appellant at 27. We cannot agree. Though neither the district court, nor for that matter the Scindia Court, used the term turnover duty, the district court focused directly on the two issues material to the pertinent inquiry: (i) [c]entral to the issue of legal fault in this litigation is whether the [original design of the] ladder at issue was causally defective, in light of applicable safety standards and other evidence proffered by Keller, Keller, No. 81-549-SD, slip op. at 13, and (ii) whether the notice given by the presence of any such hazard rendered it obvious, id. at 14. Thus, the district court clearly identified and applied the proper duty of care. We turn then to examine its factual findings. 34