Court Opinion

ID: 9455849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:35:23.034481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:45.571216
License: Public Domain

JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Appellant produced no witnesses or evidence bearing on the issue of the standard of care which Regnier could have, or should have, followed. The evidence produced in behalf of plaintiff’s ease by Regnier and his witnesses was undisputed and not in conflict. This evidence established that although the operation performed by Regnier was dangerous, he performed the work the way a longshoreman was required to perform it and that there was no other way to perform it.
Appellant contends there was evidence of contributory negligence as follows: (1) that Regnier turned his back, or more accurately, his side, to the pile of logs after he pulled the bull line free, and (2) that Regnier should have required that the bull line be pulled out with the stowing winch. The majority relies on the second contention. We discuss both.
No one disputes that Regnier was required to walk upon the logs and remove the sling. There was no other way to do the job. Having removed the sling and pulled the line free, he had to get off the pile of logs. He then had to turn his back or his side or walk off backwards. He turned his side as he walked off. The undisputed testimony was to the effect that this was the way the job had to be done. Obviously, walking down backwards would have been more hazardous. No witness suggested this manner of getting off the log pile as proper.
The undisputed testimony was that a longshoreman removed the bull line by hand if it was free. If the line was fouled under a log then the longshoreman released the “bell and knob” and the bull line was removed by the stowing winch. Here without dispute the bull line was free. Regnier then properly removed it without the use of the winch. The undisputed evidence showed this was the proper procedure. To have used the winch when the bull line was free would not have been the workmanlike way to remove it and probably would have been a delaying procedure that the employer would not have tolerated.
Regnier was engaged in dangerous work. In a position of peril, he did his job the way longshoremen are required to perform it. The majority, without saying so in so many words, and without discussing the doctrine of assumption of risk, hold that Regnier assumed the risk of injury when he performed dangerous work in a position of peril to himself.
A longshoreman does not assume the risks incident to his employment or the unseaworthiness of the vessel and its cargo. Adams v. United States (9 Cir. 1968) 393 F.2d 903, 906; Bryant v. Partenreederei-Ernest Russ (4 Cir. 1965) 352 F.2d 614, 615-616; Smith v. United States (4 Cir. 1964) 336 F.2d 165, 168.
I would affirm.