Tyrone T. Miller v. Navalmar (UK) LTD.
685 F. App'x 751
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tyrone T. Miller, a longshoreman employed by SSA/Cooper Stevedoring, fell 32 feet into the hold of the M/V CARRARA CASTLE while covering corner voids in stacks of Kraft Liner Board (KLB) rolled and stored using the "chime" method, suffering serious injuries.
- The vessel was owned by Navalmar (UK) Ltd. and on time charter to Grieg Star Shipping II AS; Grieg provided written stowage/loading procedures and a port captain observed the operation but did not enforce procedures.
- The stowage method (chiming) necessarily produced large corner voids between round rolls and hold corners; Miller stepped on plywood placed over a corner void which gave way.
- Miller sued under § 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act alleging (1) Grieg’s written procedures and port captain created "active control" duty and (2) Grieg and Navalmar had a duty to intervene when they knew of the dangerous voids and SSA failed to remedy them.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Navalmar and Grieg; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Grieg’s procedures and passive oversight did not impose an active-control duty and the defendants lacked actual knowledge of SSA’s failure to remedy such that a duty to intervene arose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grieg’s written stowage procedures and port captain’s presence created an "active control" (Scindia) duty to exercise reasonable care toward longshoremen | Grieg’s mandatory procedures and the port captain’s presence amounted to active involvement and displaced the stevedore’s primary control | Provision of a stowage plan and passive oversight do not displace the stevedore; those acts are routine and insufficient to create active control | No active-control duty: procedures and observation were passive and insufficient as a matter of law |
| Whether shipowner/time-charterer had a duty to intervene once aware of dangerous cargo-condition (duty to intervene) | The chiming method necessarily created known hazardous voids and defendants knew stevedore failed to remedy them, so they had to intervene | Defendants lacked actual knowledge that SSA was failing to remedy the hazard; they could rely on the stevedore to perform safely | No duty to intervene: plaintiff did not show defendants had actual knowledge of stevedore’s unreasonable failure to remediate |
Key Cases Cited
- Scindia Steam Nav. Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (establishes shipowner duties under §905(b): turnover, active control, duty to intervene)
- Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., 512 U.S. 92 (clarifies limits of shipowner involvement; stevedore retains primary control over cargo operations)
- Lampkin v. Liber. Athene Transp. Co., 823 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir.) (discusses allocation of responsibility to stevedore and duty-to-intervene standard)
- Greenwood v. Societe Francaise De, 111 F.3d 1239 (5th Cir.) (duty to intervene requires actual knowledge of dangerous condition and stevedore's obviously improvident failure to remedy)
- Keller v. United States, 38 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (uses when vessel’s storage method is itself so dangerous that vessel’s intervention may be required)