Bunn v. Oldendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. K.G., 763 F. Supp. 2d 753

Richard Bunn, a CNX Marine Terminals foreman, slipped on ice aboard the MV Christoffer Oldendorff during loading in Baltimore in February 2007.
The ship arrived amid an ice storm; CNX planned to clear paths and salt/sand decks, but evidence shows not all holds were cleared.
Jody White, CNX supervisor, informed the Chief Officer that additional paths and traction were needed; the Chief Officer promised to salt and sand to make it safe.
Plaintiff and a co-foreman boarded the vessel; loading began around 1:45 a.m. on February 16, with plaintiff relying on the Chief Officer’s assurances.
The ice remained on the ship’s deck and no additional cleared paths or de-icing occurred; plaintiff fell while walking toward the No. 3 Hold.
Defendant argues Scindia limits shipowner liability to hazards not obvious to stevedores; plaintiff seeks relief based on an affirmative undertaking to fix the hazard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether shipowner liability applies under Scindia framework	Lieggi-like reliance on owner’s promise to fix ice creates duty.	Scindia limits shipowner duty; open/obvious ice not actionable.	Not entitled to summary judgment; factual dispute on reliance exists.
Effect of shipowner's affirmative undertaking to fix hazard	Owner’s promise to salt/sand can create liability by inducing inaction.	Affirmative undertakings do not automatically impose liability absent breach evidence.	Jury could find liability due to promised remedial action and inaction.
Whether there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment	Evidence shows owners promised corrective steps; precludes summary judgment.	No genuine issue; standard Scindia rule applies.	Genuine issues exist; cannot grant summary judgment.
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to prevail on cross-motion for summary judgment	Cross-motion supported by record on owner’s assurances and actions.	Cross-motion untimely; lack of direct challenge to White/Chief Officer convo.	Cross-motion not stricken; to be addressed after supplemental briefing.
Procedural posture regarding strike of cross-motion	Defendant’s failure to address substance; timing issues noted.	Cross-motion untimely; lacking explicit denial of facts.	Court allowed supplemental briefing and set timelines.

Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981) (shipowner has limited duty to warn only non-obvious hazards in cargo operations)
Lieggi v. Maritime Co. of the Philippines, 667 F.2d 324 (2d Cir. 1981) (affirmative undertakings to fix hazards can create liability)
Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A., 512 U.S. 92 (1994) (duty limited to hazards not known or anticipated by stevedore)
Pimental v. LTD Canadian Pacific Bul, 965 F.2d 13 (5th Cir. 1992) (open/obvious hazards not liable; duty to turn over safe vessel)
Greenwood v. Societe Francaise De, 111 F.3d 1239 (5th Cir. 1997) (open/obvious risk and stevedore performance considerations)
Evans v. Transportacion Maritime Mexicana, 639 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1981) (owner may have duty to intervene if owner knows condition cannot be corrected by stevedore)
Bueno v. United States, 687 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1983) (nondelegable duty concepts in related contexts)