Antoinette Dixon v. NYK Reefers LTD.
705 F. App'x 819
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- M/V Wild Lotus (owned by NYK Reefers, chartered by Cool Carriers) was discharging cargo at Port Manatee; Del Monte hired Logistec as stevedore and Logistec supplied equipment and controlled stevedoring operations.
- Longshoreman Robert L. Dixon (forklift operator) entered the hatch to restart a stalled forklift; a shipboard crane lowered a 5,500‑lb steel tray onto him, killing him.
- At the time of the accident the Archie gang lacked its header and a lander; no radios were available in hold #2 and the crane operator lacked visibility into the hold.
- Logistec had inspected and certified the vessel and its gear as fit for operations before unloading; no complaints or notices about unsafe conditions were communicated to the ship’s crew during operations.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the vessel and charterer, holding they owed no duty to intervene absent a defect in the vessel or its gear; the plaintiff appealed arguing the duty to intervene extends beyond physical defects when the vessel knew (or should have known) of dangerous stevedoring practices.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding no evidence the crew had actual or constructive knowledge of the stevedore’s unsafe practices or of any failure by the stevedore to remedy known hazards; defendants were entitled to rely on the stevedore.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vessel owed a duty to intervene for stevedore negligence (no physical defect) | Dixon: vessel knew or should have known longshoremen operated without header/lander/radios, so duty to intervene existed | Defendants: absent evidence crew had actual/constructive knowledge or that vessel customarily supervised stevedoring, no duty to intervene under Scindia | No duty to intervene; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether absence of audio/visual warning devices on cranes triggered duty to intervene or turnover breach | Dixon: lack of warning devices created dangerous condition that vessel should have remedied or intervened upon | Defendants: absence of alarms is a condition of the vessel (turnover duty) but Logistec certified equipment as fit; alarms are not customary and would not necessarily make operations safer | No turnover breach shown; lack of alarms does not create duty to intervene |
| Whether vessel had a custom to monitor cargo operations (creating duty) | Dixon: vessel’s checklists, captain’s testimony, and crew presence show a custom of monitoring/uncovering hazards | Defendants: evidence shows only prescribed responses upon notice, not a custom of affirmative inspection or supervision | No evidence of a custom to monitor; vessel entitled to rely on stevedore |
Key Cases Cited
- Scindia Steam Nav. Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981) (establishes shipowner duties during stevedoring: turnover, active control, and duty to intervene)
- Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co., 394 U.S. 404 (1969) (turnover duty requires exercising ordinary care in turning over vessel and gear)
- Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., 512 U.S. 92 (1994) (describes scope of turnover and active control duties)
- Clark v. Bothelho Shipping Corp., 784 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir. 1986) (discusses limits of shipowner duty after stevedoring begins; liability only if shipowner knew of dangerous condition and failed to act)
- Hill v. Reederei F. Laeisz G.M.B.H., 435 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2006) (addresses confrontation vs. avoidance of hazards and turnover duty instructions)
- Kirsch v. Plovidba, 971 F.2d 1026 (3d Cir. 1992) (turnover duty analysis regarding open and obvious hazards)