Lexplug logoLexplug

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Plovidba

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
683 F.2d 1022 (1982)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant is not negligent if the burden of taking adequate precautions is greater than the probability of the resulting injury multiplied by the gravity of that injury (B > PL). While industry custom is not a complete defense, it is material evidence that a common practice is cost-justified and therefore reasonable.


Facts:

  • Patrick Huck was a longshoreman working aboard the M/V Makarska.
  • After Huck's crew finished working in hold number 1, the ship's crew closed the top weather deck hatch, plunging the hold into complete darkness.
  • The ship's crew then opened two lower hatches inside the darkened hold, creating a 25-foot drop to the bottom.
  • This procedure of opening lower hatches in a dark hold was a customary practice to prepare the ship for its next port of call.
  • Later in the day, while working on the weather deck of hold number 2, which was adjacent to the darkened hold 1, Huck entered hold 1 unobserved.
  • Crates of liquor were stored in the part of the hold from which Huck apparently fell.
  • Huck's body was discovered the next morning at the bottom of hold number 1, having fallen through one of the open hatches.

Procedural Posture:

  • Patrick Huck's survivors sued the owner of the M/V Makarska for negligence in federal district court (the court of first instance).
  • The case was tried before a jury, which returned a special verdict.
  • The jury found that the defendant shipowner was not negligent and assigned 75% of the responsibility to Huck and 25% to his employer, the stevedore.
  • The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant shipowner.
  • The plaintiff (Huck's survivors), as appellant, appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the shipowner as appellee.

Locked

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 breach its duty of reasonable care to a longshoreman by following a customary practice of leaving hatches open in a darkened hold where longshoremen are not expected to be, resulting in the longshoreman's death after he entered the hold for an unauthorized reason?


Opinions:

Majority - Posner

No. A shipowner does not breach its duty of care where the probability of a longshoreman being injured is so low that the owner is not required to take precautions against it. The court analyzed the shipowner's conduct using the Hand Formula (B < PL), which balances the burden of precautions (B) against the probability of injury (P) multiplied by the severity of the loss (L). Here, while the loss (L) was large (death) and the burden of precautions (B) was, at most, moderate, the probability (P) of the accident was extremely low. There was no legitimate reason for a longshoreman to be in a darkened, completed hold; the darkness itself served as an effective warning of danger; and the shipowner could reasonably rely on the stevedore to supervise its employees and enforce its work rules. Therefore, a reasonable jury could conclude that the burden of precautions was not less than the discounted potential loss, meaning the shipowner was not negligent.



Analysis:

This decision is significant for its formal adoption and practical application of the Hand Formula (B

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Plovidba (1982) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Plovidba