Court Opinion

ID: 9457926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:38:28.439828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:34.820297
License: Public Domain

CHOY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
The district court clearly erred in finding that Reinhart, as chief mate, knew that holes had been broken in the decking sheathing into one of which he fell and that he had the duty to inspect and correct damaged sheathing in the holds on the homeward voyage of the vessel. The government produced no evidence on that issue, although it could have. The only witness in the entire trial was Reinhart, the appellant, and his testimony was uncontradicted and accepted by the district court, but obviously misinterpreted.
That testimony was that “The chief mate’s job is to make sure that the cargo is stowed properly on the vessel and also the maintenance of the gear for the vessel to work cargo, and also the upkeep of the outside of the vessel, all painting, any repair work that has to do with the ship itself1 that it was the duty of the longshoremen at the home port to sheath the hatch and to renew and repair the sheathing when the ship returned to port; 2 that he and the ship’s carpenters had no duty with reference to maintenance of the holds on the way back from Vietnam3 — in fact, the vessel did not carry lumber aboard to work on sheathing;4 that his only duty as to the holds was to see that they were clean and to set rat traps there and to tend the traps; 5 that while it was not unusual for sheathing on the bulkhead to get broken up from carrying ammunition, it was unusual for holes to appear in the decking sheathing because five-by-ten foot plates were laid over the deck*156ing before equipment ran over it; 6 that he had not seen the hole in the decking sheathing at any time before he fell into it;7 and that as chief mate he was head of the deck department (not the holds), second in responsibility only to the captain to make sure that working conditions in the deck department were safe for the crew to work there.8
The district court concluded that Reinhart was the safety officer for the entire ship, including the holds and the sheathing therein, when the sole evidence in point expressly negated that conclusion. This being so, the “primary duty” bar of Walker v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 193 F.2d 772 (2nd Cir. 1952) is inapplicable to Reinhart. Not only was he not the one primarily responsible for safe working conditions in the deck department — the captain was; but also, he was not at all responsible for the maintenance and repair of the sheathing in the holds — the home port stevedores were.
Accordingly, all of the authorities cited and discussed by my Brothers in the majority opinion, which impose an absolute duty upon the shipowner to provide a seaworthy vessel, create a variety of liability without fault in the shipowner, and forbid any defense of contributory negligence or assumption of risk except in mitigation of damages, apply here with full force.
However, I would sustain the district court’s findings that Reinhart was 75% “eontributorily negligent” and that he had sustained damages totaling $8,000 which should be reduced by 75%, as not being clearly erroneous. He should not have entered the poorly-lit hold without augmenting its illumination with more cluster lights which could have been used, and he should have used his flashlight to view his path in the hold.
I would, accordingly, reverse the district court on the issue of liability and remand for assessment of mitigated damages on the doctrine of comparative negligence.

. R.T. 12.

. R.T. 13, 15, 27.

. R.T. 15, 10.

. R.T. 33.

. R.T. 26, 36.

. R.T. 29-30.

. R.T. 17-18, 71.

. R.T. 31, 34.