Richard Bunn v. Oldendorff Carriers GmbH & Co.
723 F.3d 454
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bunn, a longshoreman for CNX Marine Terminals, was injured slipping on ice while loading coal on Oldendorff's CHRISTOFFER OLDENDORFF in Baltimore (Feb 16, 2007).
- Shipboard ice existed despite prior discussions; CNX and ship crew discussed salting and sanding to create a safe loading path.
- CNX supervisor White told the ship’s chief officer Fediv that a clear path to holds was needed; Fediv promised the ship crew would salt and sand it.
- Bunn and another longshoreman boarded around 1:30 a.m. with a reportedly clear path to hatch five, but lighting was poor near other hatches (notably hatch three).
- Bunn slipped near hatch three while proceeding to load the number three hatch; he testified the area was icy and poorly lit.
- District court denied Oldendorff’s motions for judgment as a matter of law; the jury found Oldendorff negligent (1) but assigned 15% fault to Bunn; damages awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether promising to remedy an open hazard can sustain turnover-duty liability. | Bunn argues Oldendorff breached turnover duty by promising to treat ice and failing. | Oldendorff contends the turnover duty does not extend to promises to remedy an open hazard. | Yes; promise to remedy can breach turnover duty under the facts presented. |
| Whether the ice, given the promise to treat, was latent (not open/obvious) such that duty to warn applied. | Latent hazard existed after promise because defendants’ failure to treat created risk. | Hazard remained open/obvious; no duty to warn beyond and/or liability limited. | Evidence supported latent hazard given promise and failure to treat, sustaining liability. |
| Whether the district court properly instructed the jury on turnover duty and related defenses. | Correct instruction should reflect turnover duty including promise-to-remedy aspects. | Open/obvious norm limits duty; instruction should have framed open/obvious as a defense. | Instruction adequate; error not preserved; no reversal for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981) (turnover, duty to warn, and three general shipowner duties)
- Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A., 512 U.S. 92 (1994) (duty to warn attaches only to latent hazards; turnover duty explained)
- Lincoln v. Reksten Mgmt., 354 F.3d 262 (2003) (turnover duty components; ordinary care under circumstances)
- Kirsch v. Plovidba, 971 F.2d 1026 (1992) (open/obvious hazard and the duty to avoid; turnover duty limitations)
- Bonds v. Mortensen & Lange, 717 F.2d 123 (1983) (reliance on stevedore judgment; active involvement context cited for contrast)
- Lieggi v. Maritime Co. of the Philippines, 667 F.2d 324 (1981) (affirmative undertakings creating duty in turnover context)