Michael Riggs v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company and the Shipping Corporation of India

8 F.3d 1442 1994 A.M.C. 331 , 62 USLW 2319 Michael RIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCINDIA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY and the Shipping Corporation of India, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-55139. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 15, 1993. Decided Nov. 8, 1993. Marc Coleman, Middleton & Coleman, San Pedro, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. Dawn Schock, Keesal, Young & Logan, Long Beach, CA, for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: WOOD, Jr., * REINHARDT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 We decide here that longshoreworkers who are injured on board vessels while off-loading cargo stowed in an open and obviously hazardous manner by foreign stevedores may maintain negligence actions against the vessels. The district court reached a contrary conclusion. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to the vessel, and remand. I. Background 2 On October 2, 1989, Michael Riggs sustained injuries while working as a longshoreman for Stevedoring Services of America. Riggs and his longshore gang were assigned to unload cargo from the M/V Jalagopal.…

We decide here that longshoreworkers who are injured on board vessels while offloading cargo stowed in an open and obviously hazardous manner by foreign stevedores may maintain negligence actions against the vessels. The district court reached a contrary conclusion. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to the vessel, and remand.

I. Background

On October 2, 1989, Michael Riggs sustained injuries while working as a longshoreman for Stevedoring Services of America. Riggs and his longshore gang were assigned to unload cargo from the M/V Jalagopal. The Jalagopal was owned by Seindia Steam Navigation Company, Ltd. (“Seindia”) and time-chartered by The Shipping Corporation of India (“SCI”). The vessel’s cargo, which had been loaded overseas by a foreign stevedore, consisted of three-inch steel pipe tubing bundled together and covered with slippery plastic wrapping. There was uncontested evidence, including expert testimony, that the on-loading stevedore had improperly stowed the cargo and that the pipes were strewn throughout the hold in an openly and obviously hazardous manner. 1 Riggs injured his back when he slipped between two pipe bun-dies during the unloading…

concurring:

I concur because the reasoning of Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd., 651 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 967 , 103 S.Ct. 294 , 74 L.Ed.2d 278 (1982), which holds that a vessel has the duty to protect longshoremen against concealed conditions created by a foreign stevedore, which the vessel could have corrected or warned of, leads inexorably to the conclusion that the vessel has a duty of care with respect to cargo conditions whether the dangers are concealed or not. I write separately to note that until now, the turn over duty has focused on the character of the ship and its equipment, not on the condition of the cargo. See, e.g., Ludwig v. Pan Ocean Shipping Co., 941 F.2d 849 (9th Cir.1991) (duty to have ship and its equipment safe for stevedore operations); Taylor v. Moram Agencies, 739 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir.1984) (vessel not liable for hazards which develop as a result of cargo operations). By the same token, the duty to warn has existed only with regard to hidden or concealed dangers. Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 , 101 S.Ct. 1614 , 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981); Turner, 651 F.2d at 1304 . By imposing a turn over duty of care to…