Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A.
512 U.S. 92, 129 L. Ed. 2d 78, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4445 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A shipowner's turnover duty to warn a stevedore of latent defects in a cargo stow is narrow and does not require the shipowner to supervise the loading stevedore's operations or inspect the completed stow. The duty to warn applies only to latent hazards known to the vessel or that should be known in the exercise of reasonable care, which does not encompass a general duty to inspect the stevedore's work.
Facts:
- Albert Howlett, a longshoreman employed by stevedore Northern Shipping Co., was assigned to unload bags of cocoa beans from the MV Presidente Ibanez, a ship owned by Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A.
- An independent stevedore in Guayaquil, Ecuador, had previously loaded the cargo.
- Contrary to the customary practice of using paper and plywood, the loading stevedore had placed a sheet of clear plastic on the steel tween deck beneath the bags of cocoa beans.
- Birkdale had supplied the plastic, along with other stowage materials, to the loading stevedore in Ecuador.
- During the unloading operation in Philadelphia, a space on the tween deck was exposed after a load of bags was lifted.
- Howlett jumped down about three feet onto this exposed area, where he slipped on the sheet of plastic, which was obscured by dirt and debris.
- Howlett fell and sustained serious injuries that disabled him from returning to work.
Procedural Posture:
- Albert Howlett sued Birkdale Shipping Co., S. A. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Birkdale.
- Howlett, as appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment without a written opinion.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a shipowner's turnover duty to warn of latent defects in a cargo stow, under § 5(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, require the shipowner to supervise the loading stevedore's cargo operations or inspect the completed stow for hidden dangers?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. A shipowner’s turnover duty to warn under § 5(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act is narrow and does not impose a duty to supervise a loading stevedore or inspect a completed cargo stow. The Court reasoned that the 1972 amendments to the Act were intended to shift responsibility for safety during cargo operations to the stevedore, who is the expert in that field and is in the best position to prevent injuries. A shipowner is entitled to rely on the stevedore's expertise and warranty to perform competently. Imposing a duty on the vessel to supervise or inspect the stevedore's work would undermine this statutory scheme and would be inconsistent with the Court's precedent in Scindia Steam Nav. Co. v. De los Santos, which held that a vessel has no general duty to discover dangerous conditions that develop within the confines of cargo operations assigned to the stevedore. The cargo stow is distinct from the ship's own equipment, and the vessel's duty is limited accordingly. The duty to warn attaches only to latent hazards known to the vessel or which should be known in the exercise of reasonable care, but reasonable care in this context does not include a duty to inspect the stevedore's work.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and narrows a shipowner's liability under the LHWCA for injuries caused by improperly stowed cargo. By rejecting a general duty for shipowners to supervise or inspect a stevedore's work, the Court reinforces the principle from Scindia Steam that the expert stevedore bears primary responsibility for the safety of cargo operations. This decision makes it more difficult for injured longshoremen to succeed in third-party negligence suits against vessel owners for hazards created during loading, thereby strengthening the LHWCA's workers' compensation framework as the primary remedy. The ruling solidifies the legal distinction between the ship itself and the cargo stow, limiting the shipowner's duty of care with respect to conditions created by other expert contractors.
