Court Opinion

ID: 9468309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:11:52.343856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:48.888691
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
I adhere to what I said in my dissenting opinion in Giglio v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 613 F.2d 429, 436 (2d Cir. 1980). I there pointed out that the trial judge’s construction of the Safety and Health Regulations for Long-shoring (there 29 C.F.R. § 1918.91(c), here 29 C.F.R. § 1918.91(a)), also relied upon by the panel majority here, does not impose an exclusive duty upon stevedores. See Lubrano v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Co., 572 F.2d 364, 373-74 (2d Cir. 1978) (Moore, J. dissenting); see also Canizzo v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 579 F.2d 682-88 (2d Cir. 1978) (Friendly, J. dissenting), cert. denied, 439 *70U.S. 929, 99 S.Ct. 316, 58 L.Ed.2d 322 (1978). The Safety and Health Regulations specifically provide that they do not relieve vessels “from responsibilities or duties now placed upon them by law, regulation or custom.” 29 C.F.R. § 1918.2(b). If the stevedore and his employees are contributorily negligent, the liability recovery against the vessel may be reduced under the principles of comparative negligence, but not eliminated. See Napoli v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 536 F.2d 505, 508 (2d Cir. 1976).
Here as in Giglio it was the ship’s duty as substantiated by the Joint Maritime Safety Code prepared by New York Shipping Association, Inc., International Longshoremen’s Association, and the Port of New York Joint Safety Committee, with an effective date of January 1, 1970, of which the trial court took “judicial notice,” to keep the “[wjeather deck, walking and working areas . . . reasonably clear of lines, bridles, dunnage and all other loose tripping or stumbling hazards.” See Part Q. Moreover, under Part C of the Code:
The owner, master and officers of the vessel shall supply and maintain in safe condition for use all ship’s gear, equipment, tools and work spaces which are to be used in stevedoring operations. (Emphasis added).
In my view, as I said in the Giglio dissent, supra, 613 F.2d at 438, the Safety Code qualifies under the Safety and Health Regulations as a regulation or custom for the maritime industries in the Port of New York. Moreover, the union contract with the New York Shipping Association in evidence states that the Joint Safety Code must be followed, and Hellenic Lines was a signatory to this contract. As the trial court indicated, the appellees could not disclaim knowledge of the New York standard of care in the maritime industry because it was a participant in one of the two organizations propounding the Safety Code Regulations.
In short the vessel did not comply with its duties under the Safety Code. Its duty exists independent of the stevedore’s own duties under the OSHA regulations. The majority opinion speaks without any reference to the Joint Safety Code whatsoever and certainly disregards its impact on this case.
I note that Judge Sifton’s concurring opinion in Giglio v. Farrell Lines, supra, at least implies that the ship’s responsibility is not secondary to that of the stevedore, 613 F.2d at 436, and while our rules prevent my citation as authority to Irizzary v. Compania Maritime Navegacion Netumar S.A., 628 F.2d 1345 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 969, 101 S.Ct. 2045, 68 L.Ed.2d 347 (1981), since it was not a published opinion, I believe it is proper to note that in Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos,-U.S.-,-n.25, 101 S.Ct. 1614, 1622, 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981), the Irizzary decision’s holding that the Joint Safety Code was a custom or practice within the OSHA Safety Regulations was “note[d] with some interest” by the Supreme Court but not ruled upon. Certainly until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the point I made in the Giglio dissent is an open one.
Following the analysis there set forth, 613 F.2d at 436-37, the question then becomes whether in the exercise of reasonable care the ship should have cleaned up the loose lines. See Napoli, supra, 536 F.2d at 509; Restatement (Second) of Tort § 343A. This court’s own decision in Lopez v. A/S D/S Svendborg, 581 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1978), as well as Napoli itself, permit the imposition of liability, on a comparative negligence basis, on the vessel for dangers obvious to the stevedore, where as here custom or practice (The Joint Safety Code) makes the vessel responsible and the longshoreman relies on the vessel to eliminate the danger. Here there was ample evidence for the jury to find, as it did find, that Albergo did so rely. He was working in close quarters with maybe a “foot, foot and a half” between the ship’s rail and the van where the pad eye for the schooner rope was located. “It wasn’t [his] job to [push the loose rope to one side]”. His fellow worker, Tony Lavadera, had previously told the mate to clean up the deck because it was the ship’s job and the loose ropes left a dangerous condition — as Albergo himself described it, “like when you walk on the snow.”
*71Under what I think was basically a proper charge the jury found the vessel negligent, its negligence the proximate cause of the accident, and Albergo twenty-five per cent contributorily negligent. I believe the law requires that the jury verdict stand.
Purely as an aside, I fail to understand the relevancy of the majority’s point that Mr. Albergo had three previous claims for injury. I do not find this in the slightest surprising; the man was fifty-eight years old at the time of this accident, he had been a longshoreman for twenty-nine years, and it is well known that a longshoreman’s work is one of the most hazardous of any. The present case is simply another example. A longshoreman is expected to step over 20 to 30 loose pieces of rope totalling some 300 to 400 feet in length thrown haphazardly in a narrow little space to loosen and resecure the preventer on a padeye to respot the up and down boom so that the men could work in the hold. It was the ship’s equipment to be secured to the padeye. The ship knew some longshoreman would have to go into the narrow space with the loose rope obstructions but did nothing. Thus, Albergo’s fourth claim, which the majority now denies. Only its merits are relevant, I think.