William Crace v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems
670 F. App'x 196
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Crace was injured while inspecting a Navy ship still under construction, after ducking under a chain and descending a ladder into a hatch.
- Crace alleged defective design, construction, and installation of the ladder, and negligent placement of a locked safety chain that constrained access.
- Crace asserted claims under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, general maritime law, and state law.
- The district court held: (1) federal maritime claims lacked jurisdiction because the ship was not a completed vessel; (2) government contractor immunity shielded Huntington Ingalls from state-law negligence claims; (3) the safety chain was an open and obvious condition that did not create a duty.
- Crace appeals the district court’s rulings on maritime status, immunity, and duty with respect to the safety chain.
- The court affirmed, ruling the ship was not a vessel under maritime law, immunity applied, and the safety chain posed an open-and-obvious risk without a duty to protect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ship was a vessel under maritime law at the time of the accident | Crace contends the ship was sufficiently complete to be a vessel | Huntington Ingalls argues the ship remained under construction and not a vessel | The ship was not a vessel; under construction |
| Whether government contractor immunity bars Crace's state-law design/construction claims | Crace argues state-law claims should proceed | Huntington Ingalls complied with Navy specifications approved by the Navy | Immunity applies; state-law design/construction claims barred |
| Whether Huntington Ingalls owed a duty regarding the safety chain given it was open and obvious | Crace asserts a duty to protect against an open/open-open condition | Open and obvious risks do not create a duty under Louisiana law | No duty; risk was open and obvious |
Key Cases Cited
- Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2008) (ship under construction not a vessel; traditional maritime activity)
- Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 723 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1984) (injury to a ship construction worker on a ship under construction not maritime tort)
- Hollister v. Luke Constr. Co., 517 F.2d 920 (5th Cir. 1975) (precedent on ship construction status)
- Casas v. U.S. Joiner, LLC, 372 F. App’x 440 (5th Cir. 2010) (case involving ship construction context)
- Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005) (Supreme Court statement on vessel status (foreclosed here))
- Richendollar v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 819 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc standard for maritime tort nexus)